Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Hybrid application for the residential redevelopment of the Anglian Business Park to provide a total of up to 67 dwellings (of a range of sizes, types and tenures including affordable housing) and associated parking, landscaping, open space and ancillary works comprising: PHASE 1 - Application for full planning permission for the erection of two apartment blocks within the southern part of the site comprising a total of 28 units and associated parking, landscaping, open space and associated works; SUBSEQUENT PHASES - Application for outline planning permission on the remaining part of the site involving the demolition of the existing business park buildings and the provision of up to 39 dwellings including a mix of houses and apartments and associated parking, landscaping, open space and ancillary works (all matters reserved except for access).

RESOLVED: That application 19/01172/HYA be GRANTED planning permission subject to completion of a satisfactory Section106 agreement and the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following amended and additional informatives:

 

Amended Condition 16:

 

To include additional sentence after the first sentence as follows: ‘these details are also to include the specification of the proposed bin stores’

 

An additional informative to read:

 

Design of Subsequent Phases

 

It should be noted that the Council considers that the design of subsequent phases approved in outline must be predicated on the applicant’s overall objective of ‘greening the site’. Accordingly, the figure of 39 units is an upper quantum and should be regarded as subordinate to the aforementioned design objective.

Audio Recording – 11 Minutes 35 Seconds

 

Hybrid application for the residential redevelopment of the Anglian Business Park to provide a total of up to 67 dwellings (of a range of sizes, types and tenures including affordable housing) and associated parking, landscaping, open space and ancillary works comprising: PHASE 1 - Application for full planning permission for the erection of two apartment blocks within the southern part of the site comprising a total of 28 units and associated parking, landscaping, open space and associated works; SUBSEQUENT PHASES - Application for outline planning permission on the remaining part of the site involving the demolition of the existing business park buildings and the provision of up to 39 dwellings including a mix of houses and apartments and associated parking, landscaping, open space and ancillary works (all matters reserved except for access).

 

The Principal Planning Officer informed Members of the Committee that there were some corrections to the report, as follows:

 

·                Paragraph 4.3.13 – the first sentence should read “would be satisfactory” (“be” was missing)

 

·                Paragraph 4.4.1 should be re-worded to read:

 

‘That permission be granted in detail for phase 1 and in outline for phases 2 and 3. NOTE: Most conditions apply only to the detailed permission for 28 units (phase 1) Conditions will be identified as applying to either the ‘detailed’ or ‘outline’ permission. No designation identifies conditions as applying to both.’

 

·                Condition 23 should cite ‘condition 22’ not condition 23.

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 19/01172/HYA supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

Mr Kaine Rowley thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to planning application 19/01172/HYA, including:

 

·                The primary concern centred around the increase traffic on Orchard Road during the phased build and after;

·                During peak ‘non-Covid’ times, it already took 10-15 minutes to exit Orchard Grange onto Orchard Road owing to parked vehicles;

·                Exiting onto Orchard Road was made more difficult as a result of poor visibility and Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs);

·                The addition of more HGVs during the construction work and more residential vehicles post construction work, would compound the already existing issue;

·                Disruption could be caused to existing residents; and

·                Noise from the proposed new play area could affect residents.

 

The following Members sought clarification from Mr Rowley’s presentation:

 

·                Councillor Ruth Brown; and

·                Councillor Michael Weeks.

 

In response to questions of clarification, Mr Rowley responded as follows:

 

·                The issue with exiting the Orchard Grange estate was due to vehicles parked opposite on Charding Crescent and a high number of construction vehicles using the road;

 

In response to Members’ questions, the Principal Planning Officer responded as follows:

 

·                Members were considering outlined and detailed planning permission – Phase 1 in detail and Phases 2 and 3 as a matter of principle up to 39 dwellings.

 

NB: There was a pause in proceedings at 20:00 to carry out the ‘Clap for Carers’. The meeting resumed at 20:05.

 

Following the pause in proceedings, the Principal Planning Officer continued to respond to questions raised, as follows:

 

·                The site had been industrial for some years;

·                The site had not been subject to planning permission for a residential development;

·                An element of 2 blocks would be affordable housing;

·                The term ‘over developed’ had no meaning unless precisely defined. Over developed could mean a multiple of things such as garden size being too small, not sufficient parking or the buildings being too big;

·                The National Planning Policy Framework urged Authorities to make optimum efficient  use of land; and

·                This site was being developed at optimum capacity in his opinion.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Rowley for his presentation.

 

Mr Simon Hoskins, JB Planning Associates, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of planning application 19/01172/HYA, including:

 

·                The site had been allocated for residential development in the emerging Local Plan;

·                The site was allocated as being one of only few sites available within Royston being suitable for residential development and occupying previously-developed land;

·                The site was within a sustainable location, close to the railway station, shopping facilities and the town centre;

·                The site was divided into two parts. The northern part comprised of four business units and the southern part comprised of vacant land, immediately available for development;

·                In order to bring forward an early residential scheme, the application had been submitted as a hybrid;

·                The proposed layout and design of the new flats had been carefully considered to achieve a high quality development. Two blocks were proposed in Phase 1, each containing 14 new flats;

·                The scheme provided appropriate levels of car and cycle parking; and

·                The S106 agreement provided for 30% of the new dwellings onsite to be affordable housing.

 

The following Members sought clarification from Mr Hoskin’s presentation:

 

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala;

·                Councillor Daniel Allen;

·                Councillor Tony Hunter; and

·                Councillor Ruth Brown.

 

In response to questions raised by Members, Mr Hoskin responded as follows:

 

·                All of the affordable units would be within the rented tenure;

·                The site was previously used for farm manure, making it contaminated land;

·                A detailed drainage scheme and a surface water assessment had been put together. The finer details of which were with the Lead Local Flood Authority – Hertfordshire County Council;

·                There was provision for cycle parking – 40 for 28 units; and

·                The applicant had no objection of the possibility of creating a pedestrian link between the application site and Braeburn Walk. However, there was a view that this would not provide any real benefit for the occupiers of either development.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Hoskins for his presentation.

 

In response to issues raised, the Principal Planning Officer provided the following information to Members:

 

·                Play areas needed to be located where there was adequate surveillance. The proposed play area was in the correct place in his opinion; and

·                Pedestrian access was not desirable in the area discussed by Members for security reasons and because the residents of the adjacent housing development might not want pedestrians walking between parked cars.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·                Councillor Ruth Brown;

·                Councillor David Levett;

·                Councillor Daniel Allen;

·                Councillor Ian Mantle; and

·                Councillor Tony Hunter.

 

Points raised during the debate by Members included:

 

·                The lease of the existing units on the site;

·                Noise concern;

·                The number of parking spaces needed to be increased;

·                Concern with changing industrial/employment land into residential; and

·                Reducing the height and number of the blocks.

 

In response to points raised by Members during the debate, the Principal Planning Officer responded as follows:

 

·                There were currently 4 industrial units on the site. The lease of units 1, 2 and 3 expired in 2028, with a break clause in 2023.The lease of unit 4 expired in 2024;

·                Condition 11 dealt with noise mitigation measures. A Noise and Vibration Assessment needed to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority - the Council’s Environmental Health Officers had been consulted and were satisfied;

·                Members were directed to paragraph 4.3.9 on page 14 of the report in respect to a Member’s question on density;

·                Members were required to determine the application before them – a lesser scheme was not able to be assessed as it had not been looked into; and

·                A Construction Traffic Management Plan was detailed at Condition 9.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Levett, seconded by Councillor Hunter and upon being put to the vote it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 19/01172/HYA be GRANTED planning permission subject to completion of a satisfactory Section106 agreement and the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following amended and additional informatives:

 

Amended Condition 16:

 

To include additional sentence after the first sentence as follows: ‘these details are also to include the specification of the proposed bin stores’

 

An additional informative to read:

 

Design of Subsequent Phases

 

It should be noted that the Council considers that the design of subsequent phases approved in outline must be predicated on the applicant’s overall objective of ‘greening the site’. Accordingly, the figure of 39 units is an upper quantum and should be regarded as subordinate to the aforementioned design objective.