Agenda item - 17/00110/1 - LAND SURROUNDING BURLOES COTTAGES, NEWMARK ROAD, ROYSTON

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline application for up to 325 dwellings including single site access and temporary construction access, with all other matters reserved including landscaping (including open space, and pedestrian links), appearance, layout and scale.

Prior to the item being considered, Councillor Tony Hunter declared a declarable

interest in that he had objected to site RY10 in the Local Plan. He advised that he

would listen to the presentations and address the Committee as a Member Advocate

following which, he would leave the room and take no part in the debate and vote.

RESOLVED:

(1) That application 17/00110/1 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, the following amended and additional conditions and completion of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement.

Condition 5

That Condition 5 be amended to read:

“Construction of the approved development shall not commence until a Construction

Traffic Management Plan has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Thereafter, the

construction of the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the

approved Plan. The Construction Traffic Management Plan shall include construction

vehicle numbers/routing such as prohibition of construction traffic being routed

through Royston town centre and shall be carried out as approved. The temporary

construction access off of Burloes Lane shall be closed to the satisfaction of the

Highway Authority on completion of construction activity on the site.”

Condition 8

That Condition 8 be amended to read:

“Prior to the determination of a reserved matters application, the applicant shall

undertake an ecological assessment of the development site which utilises the

DEFRA Biodiversity Impact Calculator metric or a similar assessment tool. The

development must demonstrate a positive ecological unit score from the pre

development baseline.

Condition 11

That Condition 11 be amended to read:

“Prior to the commencement of the development the applicant shall submit a

programme for the delivery and adoption (or private management of) footpaths

around the site, with public access secured in perpetuity including non-car access for

cycles and mobility scooters to the established residential development off of Valley

Rise. This programme will be agreed by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction

with Herts County Council Rights of Way. The agreed programme will be

implemented in accordance with any agreed phasing programme and thereafter

maintained in perpetuity.

Reason: To deliver a sustainable scheme of public rights of way for the incumbent

population and the wider community.”

Condition 17

That a new condition 17 be added to read:

“Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved further details

shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, in consultation

with the highway authority, concerning the provision of an emergency vehicle access

along Burloes Lane following the cessation of its use for construction traffic. The

approved emergency access details shall be implemented prior to first occupation.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.”

(2) That, should, for any reason, the Section 106 agreement not be completed before the 30th Sept 2019 and the applicant does not agree to an extension of time to allow for this, officers be requested to refuse planning permission under delegated powers on the grounds of no satisfactory Section 106 agreement

(3) That officers be requested to enquire whether Section 106 contributions for youth provision be allocated to projects in Royston and not in Hitchin.

Councillor Tony Hunter returned to the room

There was a 5 minute comfort break at 21:17.

Audio Recording – Session 1 - 4 mins 56 secs

Prior to the item being considered, Councillor Tony Hunter declared a declarable

interest in that he had objected to site RY10 in the Local Plan. He advised that he

would listen to the presentations and address the Committee as a Member Advocate

following which, he would leave the room and take no part in the debate and vote.

The Principal Planning Officer (East Team) presented the report in respect of

application 17/00110/1 supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs

and plans.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended that the following amendments be

made to the conditions:

Condition 5

Add the following at the end of condition 5:

“the temporary construction access off of Burloes Lane shall be closed to the

satisfaction of the Highway Authority on completion of construction activity on the

site.”

Condition 8

The words “neutral or to be deleted from the final sentence so that it read:

“The development must demonstrate a positive ecological unit score from the pre

development baseline.

The following Members asked questions of the Principal Planning Officer:

• Councillor Ian Mantle;

• Councillor Michael Weeks;

• Councillor Mike Rice;

• Councillor Terry Tyler.

In answer to questions, the Principal Planning Officer clarified the following:

• Bikes and pedestrians would have to use the main access point to the site.

• Although appearance was not a consideration at this meeting, It had been included in the Design Statement that any development above 2.5 storeys must be avoided unless it could be adequately justified.

• The trees that could be seen on the site plan may be retained but this was a matter for the reserved matters stage.

• In respect of the Section 106 contributions, the youth contribution of £25,478.25 would go towards the Hitchin Young People’s Centre. Although this facility was located in Hitchin, it would provide a service to the Youth of the whole District.

Councillor Tony Hunter thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the

Committee in objection to application 17/00110/1 as follows:

• There was only one point of access to the site;

• Policy stated that any development of more than 300 dwellings had to have two accesses;

• The traffic along the A505 had no way to turn right into Newmarket Road;

• County agreed to a safety audit on RY2, which resulted in a roundabout being provided;

• A great deal of trees and vegetation would be removed to make the sight lines required for the access;

• Construction traffic would need traffic lights to allow construction vehicles into the site as it was so dangerous;

• The site needed an emergency vehicle access;

• Traffic would have to come through Royston Town Centre to access the site.

The following members asked questions of Councillor Tony Hunter:

• Councillor David Barnard;

• Councillor Mike Rice;

• Councillor Sue Ngwala.

In response to questions, Councillor Tony Hunter advised:

• If there was to be one access to the development then an emergency vehicle access was required. This had been achieved in other developments;

• Although leaving the access via Burloes was an option, this was considered as dangerous by HCC;

• The road width within the estate would be something that would need to be looked at by Hertfordshire County Council Highways at the reserved matters stage;

• The main concern was the single access, which would result in the estate being cut off if there were a problem there.

The Principal Planning Officer further added that:

• The Fairview Scheme had an emergency vehicle access;

• The site only having one main access point, was considered satisfactory by the Highways Authority;

• It would be noted that there was a concern with the lack of emergency vehicle access.

Members asked that their concerns regarding the single access to the site be

minuted.

Councillor Hunter left the room at 8.02pm for the rest of the item

Mr Peter Williams, Countryside Properties, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity

address the Committee in support of application 17/00110/1 as follows:

• This was an allocated site in the emerging Local Plan and was outside of the Green Belt;

• The proposals had been extensively consulted on;

• £6 million would be go towards the provision of a school through Section 106 contributions;

• There would be a provision of affordable and social rented housing;

• Bus route provisions would be put in place;

• The scheme would provide open spaces including play areas;

• The site would offer 325 x 2-5 bedroom homes;

• There would be economic benefits for the area and to the Council;

• This scheme would offer quality homes that would be well-designed and sympathetic to the local area.

The following Members asked questions of Mr Williams’ presentation:

• Councillor Ian Mantle;

• Councillor Ruth Brown;

• Council Michael Weeks.

In response to questions, Mr Williams advised:

• There would be a cycle route within the development;

• It was intended that there would be a contribution towards an extension of the bus service;

• The copse of trees would be retained;

• There were no details of what would be included in the open spaces as of yet, but they would engage with the Council to discuss;

• They would be happy to explore Burloes as an emergency access, but would have to consult with HCC;

• The site had significant topographical issues and another access would require significant levelling.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that:

• It may be possible to retain the construction access as an emergency vehicle access;

• The developer was keen on open spaces and allotments could be considered at the details stage of the application.

The following Members took part in the debate:

• Councillor Mike Rice

• Councillor Ian Mantle

• Councillor David Levett

• Councillor Ruth Brown

• Councillor David Barnard

• Councillor Kay Tart

• Councillor Terry Tyler

• Councillor Sean Prendergast.

Points raised during the debate were as follows:

• The lack of emergency vehicle access to the development;

• More than one access to the site was needed;

• The Scheme was not encouraging the use of other forms of transport other than cars;

• Better access was needed for those who did not drive;

• Cycle and pedestrian ways through to Studlands were needed especially as there was a school near by;

• There should be cycle and mobility access into the Town;

• This development should be better integrated with the Studlands development;

• There should be better connectivity with established developments;

• Footways should be widened to include cycle ways;

• Drivers’ visibility was restricted on the junction leaving the development and turning right out of the site was hazardous;

• Visibility splays were insufficient;

• Without cycle ways, it was unlikely that residents would use the amenities in Royston as it would be more convenient for them to drive out of the town to shop;

• The Section 106 youth contribution should be spent in developing youth provision in Royston rather than being spent in Hitchin;

• The National Speed Limit outside the development was a concern;

• The percentage of affordable housing on the site was not enough;

The Principal Planning Officer advised Members that:

• The proposed footpaths were to be used by cyclists;

• Hertfordshire County Council has considered bus routes into Royston Town Centre;

• The Highways Authority dictated the speed limit;

• In considering the amount of affordable housing, it was noted that £6 million would be provided for a school and the offer of 20 percent affordable housing had been supported by a viability assessment;

The Planning Lawyer confirmed that the Section 106 agreement was a legal

document that meant provision of affordable housing would be guaranteed.

Members sought an amendment to condition 11 to ensure pedestrian, cycle and

motor scooter access between developments.

The Planning Lawyer raised a Point of Order, advising that as Councillor Sean

Prendergast had left the Chamber during the debate, he would be unable to vote on

this application.

It was proposed by Councillor Barnard and seconded by Councillor Rice that

application 17/00110/1 be deferred for the following reasons:

• Road safety on Newmarket road;

• Lack of an emergency access to the site;

• Only one main access point to the site.

Upon the vote and on the Chairman’s casting vote the motion to defer was lost.

It was proposed by Councillor Ian Mantle and seconded by Councillor Morgan

Derbyshire that the application be granted permission subject to:

• The conditions in the report;

• The revised Conditions 5 and 8, as advised by the Principal Planning Officer;

• Amended Condition 11 to take into account connectivity between estates;

• An additional Condition 17 regarding an emergency vehicle access at Burloes;

• That officers request that Section 106 contribution for youth provision be allocated in Royston rather than Hitchin.

Upon the vote it was: