Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 20/00908/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio Recording – 1 Hour 7 Minutes 55 Seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 20/00908/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Development and Conservation Manager drew Members’ attention to the Relevant History, as detailed at paragraph 1.0 on page 53 within the report.

Following the summary of the Relevant History, Members sought clarification from the Development and Conservation Manager of matters raised. The Development and Conservation responded accordingly.

Mr Philip Holland thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/00908/FP, including:

·                The noise and volume of traffic that this application would generate. That point was supported by the Planning Inspector, who had refused the original plan for 3 detached dwellings in September 2015; and

·                The noise survey was conducted between Thursday 14 November 2019 and Tuesday 19 November 2019. However, Mr Holland had hired a compactor on Monday 18 November 2019, which was used in the front garden of 94 Green Drift in the morning. He was required to wear ear defenders while using the compactor. The noise levels of traffic recorded at other times appear to be similar to that of the compactor recorded on the Monday morning.

The Chair thanked Mr Holland for his presentation.

Councillor Carol Stanier, Member Advocate, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/00908/FP, including:

·                The proposal involved creating an unacceptable form of backland development which would have identifiable physical relationship with the existing pattern of frontage developments within the area, thereby failing to have adequate regard to the character and context of the surrounding area and detracting from the general character and appearance of this particular part of Royston;

·                The proposal for three dwellings would result in a significant increase in the use of the single access driveway giving rise to a loss of residential amenity to the occupiers of the adjoining dwellings particularly the bungalow at No. 94 Green Drift;

·                The economic and social benefits of the proposal were clearly and demonstrably outweighed by the environmental and social harm. As such, the development failed to accord with policy D3 of the Emerging Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole;

·                Royston Town Council had objected to every iteration of this development as being overdevelopment and not in keeping with the area;

·                Residents on Cedar Close were concerned that as the official address will be on this road, visitors including delivery etc would come to this road and parking in front of the access would reduce their own access to driveways; and

·                This road was a quiet, largely retirement road and increased traffic and parking would be extremely undesirable and alter the character of the road considerably.

The following Members sought clarification of Councillor Stanier’s presentation:

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala; and

·                Councillor David Levett.

In response to questions, Councillor Stanier advised as follows:

·                It was believed that the applicant lived at Number 92; and

·                The increase in vehicles accessing the property related to the 2015 multiple dwellings.

Mr David Farrell thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 20/00908/FP, including

·                Provided the Committee with an explanation and background to the Relevant History;

·                There remained only one outstanding reason for refusing the application which would be on the grounds of the impact of additional traffic generated by the 2 bed chalet on the habitable rooms of the existing house adjacent to Green Drift;

·                The acoustic report submitted with the application was completed before the Covid-19 Lockdown period when traffic noise was higher than it was at present;

·                The acoustic report confirmed that noise levels complied with British and International standards; and

·                The Council’s Environmental Health Officer confirmed that he agreed with the methods and conclusions of the acoustic report.

The following Members sought clarification of Mr Farrell’s presentation:

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

In response to the Member’s question, Mr Farrell advised that the only trees that would be removed were illustrated on the site plan.

There was further clarification sought by Members in relation to the alteration of Number 92.

The Development and Conservation Manager responded to points raised as follows:

·                There were two issues for the inspector (1) the effect on the character and appearance of the area and (2) the effect on living conditions.

The following Members took part in the debate:

·                Councillor David Levett;

·                Councillor Tony Hunter;

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala; and

·                Councillor Tom Tyson.

Points raised by Members:

·                The predicted noise levels were 40 decibels – rainfall had a noise level of approximately 50 decibels;

·                The noise levels were below what was accepted;

·                The noise assessment was adequate;

·                The installation of EV charging points to encourage quieter forms of transport.

In response to the EV charging point recommendation, the Development and Conservation Manager directed Members to Condition 10 which had already conditioned the installation of an Electric Vehicle Charging Point.

It was proposed by Councillor Levett to grant planning permission which was seconded by Councillor Hunter. Upon being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 20/00908/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.