Agenda item - 20/00603/FP 189 HIGH STREET, CODICOTE, HTICHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG4 8UD

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of three 4-bed dwellings with associated parking, bin/cycle storage and alterations to existing vehicular access following demolition of existing dwelling.

RESOLVED: That planning application 20/00603/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the amended conditions below:

Amended Condition 3 to read:

Materials Condition

Details and/or samples of materials to be used on all external elevations and the roof of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced and the approved details shall be implemented on site.

Reason: To ensure that the development will have an acceptable appearance which does not detract from the appearance and character of the surrounding area.

Condition 10:

Condition 10 in the report is to be removed as no longer required and replaced with the following Land Contamination Conditions (added and agreed by agent):

(a) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a Site Investigation (Phase II environmental risk assessment) report has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority which includes:

(i) A full identification of the location and concentration of all pollutants on this site and the presence of relevant receptors, and;

(ii) The results from the application of an appropriate risk assessment methodology

(b) No development approved by this permission (other than that necessary for the discharge of this condition) shall be commenced until a Remediation Method Statement report; if required as a result of (a), above; has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

(c) This site shall not be occupied, or brought into use, until:

(i) All works which form part of the Remediation Method Statement report pursuant to the discharge of condition (b) above have been fully completed and if required a formal agreement is submitted that commits to ongoing monitoring and/or maintenance of the remediation scheme.

(ii) A Remediation Verification Report confirming that the site is suitable for use has been submitted to, and agreed by, the Local Planning Authority.

(d) Any contamination, other than that reported by virtue of condition (a) and (b), encountered during the development of this site shall be brought to the attention of the Local Planning Authority as soon as practically possible; a scheme to render this contamination harmless shall be submitted to and agreed by, the Local Planning Authority and subsequently fully implemented prior to the occupation of this site.

Reason: To ensure that any contamination affecting the site is dealt with in a manner that safeguards human health, the built and natural environment and controlled waters.

Audio Recording – 1 Hour 33 Minutes

Erection of three 4-bed dwellings with associated parking, bin/cycle storage and alterations to existing vehicular access following demolition of existing dwelling.

Before the Development and Conservation Manager introduced the report, Councillor Ian Moody advised the Committee that he would be speaking as a Member Advocate on the item. He further added that he would not take part in the debate or vote and would disable his video and microphone on the completion of his presentation.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 20/00603/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans and advised the following:

· Pre-commencement conditions had been agreed by the applicant;

· Condition 3 was missing from the report and would be added in; and

· Condition 10 was no longer required and would be replaced with a Contaminated Land Condition.

Mr Tom Brindley thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/00603/FP, including:

· While the proposal no longer attempted to incorporate Green Belt land, the impact on the Green Belt remained;

· The impact was exacerbated by the elevated height of the site. Plots 1 and 2 were significantly closer to the Green Belt boundary than the existing property and were significantly higher;

· Policy 57 of the Saved Local Plan required that 'housing proposals should relate to and enhance their site and surroundings, and the layout and design of the proposed dwellings/site will maintain and improve the character of the immediate context. This development would not maintain the character of the immediate context;

· Policy D1 stated the design must “Respond positively to the site’s local context”. This design is incongruous with the site’s local context and that the Development must respond positively to the site taking into consideration position, orientation, scale, height, layout, massing. The height, layout and massing all failed this test;

· Parking was not available on site as the access road was too narrow. The density of the site also made manoeuvring cars difficult. The overall result would be a large number of car manoeuvres creating noise and pollution for both the residents of the site and the neighbouring houses; and

· The development would cause the loss of a substantial number of trees (11).

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

· Councillor Michael Weeks; and

· Councillor Ruth Brown.

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

• The peak of the ridge was located where the current building was and ran back almost green belt boundary and then fell away;

• The ridge sloped away in 3 sides;

• The current access served 187, 189 and 189a and this land was not owned by the developer; and

• There would be 2 access roads in parallel.

The Chair thanked Mr Brindley for his presentation.

Councillor Ian Moody, Member Advocate, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak in objection to application 20/00603/FP, including:

· The amended plans do not represent appropriate development for an edge of the 'built village' site, adjacent to the green belt;

· The site was clearly visible from the higher land to the east of the village;

· The existing dwellings were low level bungalows or chalet bungalows which sat on large plots making the area sparsely developed. The density of the proposal was in conflict with this and therefore is not sympathetic to the area;

· The height of the dwellings was still imposing and would have a significant detrimental impact on the surrounding properties;

· The proposed widening of the access would negatively impact adjacent properties, particularly the privacy of the residents of 191 High Street;

· There were concerns about an increase in traffic accessing onto the High Street in respect of safety and congestion; and

· This proposal rendered the green belt portion of the site inaccessible to pedestrians and vehicles.

The Chair thanked Councillor Moody for his presentation.

Councillor Moody disabled his Camera and Microphone and took no further part in the debate or vote on this item.

Aimee Cannon, WYG Group, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 20/00603/FP, including:

· There were a number of benefits to the scheme over and above those that the previous scheme delivered;

· The scheme comprised a lower density development with a reduced number of family dwellings;

· The scheme was more spacious allowing for more landscaping opportunities, reduced hardstanding areas and enhanced ecology benefits;

· The proposal would result in an improved widened access with improved sightlines on to High Street;

· No objections had been received from technical officers;

· Objectors had raised the Green Belt as a concern- the revised application did not include any land within the Green Belt, thus there was no impact upon openness of the Green Belt;

· In relation to height, the application site was not subject to any restrictive covenants that stipulated any limit to the height and planning policy did not preclude against two storey dwellings providing residential amenity of neighbouring properties were maintained;

· The dwellings had been designed in close dialogue with Officers;

· The dwellings were at a higher elevation than the existing dwellings fronting High Street, however this needs to be read in context;

· The land did not sit within the planning application redline and as such access to the paddock should not be a material consideration; and

· The proposal was a small-scale housing development within a village identified for growth, on an under-utilised plot, and would provide additional housing contributing towards housing supply in North Herts.

The following Members sought clarification from Ms Cannon’s presentation:

· Councillor Terry Tyler;

· Councillor Michael Weeks;

· Councillor Daniel Allen;

· Councillor David Levett; and

· Councillor Mike Hughson.

In response to questions raised by Members, Ms Cannon provided the following responses:

· The proposal would be visible from the green belt;

· Only the access road was owned by the applicant and would be widened by 4.1 metres; and

· Some low quality trees would be lost during the widening of the access road. However, these would be replaced as well as there being other landscaping opportunities.

NB: There was a break in proceedings at 21:32. The meeting resumed at 21:40.

In response to points and questions raised by Members, the Development and Conservation Manager responded as follows:

· It would be difficult to control a Right of Way; and

· It would not be in the Committee’s remit to grant access to the paddock.

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