Agenda item

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/2735/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to a legal agreement and the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.  It was also recommended that delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the legal agreement and conditions.

 

The Principal Planning Officer, on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, referred to the late representations summary list that had been provided. She referred to the response of the Highway Authority to a query she had raised regarding the highways implications of the proposed development. She said that there were no plans to reduce the speed limit of 30 mph. She also referred to the matter of bus stops within the carriageway on the main highway and the issue of a signalised junction.

 

Members were advised of concerns regarding the sustainability of the development in terms of the lack of solar panels and the lack of suitable infrastructure proposals. The Officer also referred to the matter of improvements to the A1184 prior to construction and a request that these matters be raised with the developer.  Members were advised that all of these matters had been covered in the Committee report.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that this was a hybrid application that was part full and part outline for two thirds of the SAWB4 strategic site in the District Plan which was located to the north of Sawbridgeworth.  She said that phase one was the full application for eighty five dwellings and the outline application at phase two was for up to ninety nine dwellings to the eastern side of the site.

 

Members were advised that the phase one full application site had been designed around an L shaped open space which coincided with the existing areas of trees within the site. The Officer said that most of the site was agricultural grazing land which included a small area of trees which would be retained. The application included a spine road that would also run through phase two and the Officer said that application included a variety of house types and sizes.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that the proposed development was generally in accordance with the adopted masterplan.  She detailed the location of the affordable housing and summarised the proposed building heights of two and two and half storey dwellings and a part 3 storey flatted block situated close to the southern site boundary.

 

Members were advised that the orange markers on the plan indicated the location of affordable rented units and the blue markers were for the shared ownership units. The Officer said that forty percent of the dwellings in total would be affordable in accordance with policy. She said that the affordable housing was not concentrated in one area and was spread in groups around the site. She advised that these units were intended to be tenure blind.

 

The Principal Planning Officer summarised the proposed access works.  She said that the main access remained in the original position but would be widened and improved. She said that a right turn lane was proposed and as some concerns had been raised regarding the access, Officers had contacted the Highway Authority to clarify a number of issues.

 

Members were advised that a potential proposal to reduce the speed limit to 30 mph was on the original application drawings.  This had been considered and reviewed by the Hertfordshire County Council speed management group meeting prior to them responding to the application. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that this group had concluded that a reduction in the speed limit was not warranted.  She also said that traffic modelling had indicated that a signalised junction was not necessary in this location and the road layout would be subject to stage one and stage two road safety audits.

 

Members were advised that bus stop improvements were proposed as part of the scheme and these were within the carriageway of the main road, which would have an impact in terms of slowing the traffic down. The Officer said that this was the best option as buses would struggle to re-join the carriageway if they had pulled off the road into a bus stop and this was preferable in terms of minimising delays to passenger transport. She said that the prioritisation of passenger transport over the private car was part of the long term sustainability policy.

 

The Principal Planning Officer displayed a number of elevation drawings and made a number of points about the design and layout of the proposed development. She said that the full planning application was a good quality application that met adopted policy standards in terms of the design of affordable housing units and the design achieved an improvement over building regulations requirements.  She also said that the application would result in a net gain in terms of biodiversity.

 

The Principal Planning Officer concluded that the phase 2 outline application was for up to 99 dwellings with all matters reserved and there would be a potential phase 3 application coming forward at some point. Mr Kibirige addressed the Committee in support of the application.  Councillor Furnace addressed the Committee on behalf of Sawbridgeworth Town Council.

 

Councillor Beckett said that he took issue with the sustainability of the designs in that he believed that these would not perform as well as expected and would fall below building regulation requirements in future.  He said that it was disappointing and not good enough for a developer already working in East Herts to submit an application with such a weak sustainability agenda.

 

Councillor Beckett said that motorists could not move along the main road most of the time and he could not understand how the likely traffic impact could be judged to be minimal as a result of the proposed development and he felt that the impact could not pass any kind of test. He said that the lack of a travel plan, which was a legal requirement, was a concern and he felt that this scheme should be deferred until that document had been received.

 

Councillor Crystall said that 3.5 percent above part L of the building regulations standards was not acceptable given that these homes would prove expensive to heat and would not meet current or future standards.  He said that it would be left to residents to bring the units up to standard and he stated that the housing would not be of the high quality standard that should be delivered in East Herts.

 

Councillor Crystall said that he was concerned over two properties that would have noisy gardens. He stated that a condition should be applied to secure noise panels or trees and bushes.  He said that in an air quality management area, boilers were not acceptable and should not be used even though they would produce low levels of NOx.  He said that solar panels and air source heat pumps should be used instead of boilers. He concluded that an electric car club should be planned to control emissions and he said that he was really disappointed by this whole site.

 

Councillor Buckmaster said that she accepted that this site was part of the East Herts District Plan and the principle of development was not in question. She said that she was very concerned regarding this application given that two thirds of an application already equated to 184 dwellings.  She expressed her concern that with SAWB2 and SAWB3 having gone over the expected number, the town was now going to have nearer 600 new homes instead of the 500 home allocation stipulated in the East Herts District Plan.

 

Councillor Buckmaster said that the landscape advice had stated that the site layout was awkward and the tandem parking arrangement was indicative of overdevelopment.  She referred to the areas of concern identified by the Landscape Officer.  She said that the three storey element of the application was on a higher elevation and would therefore be very overbearing and overpowering.

 

Councillor Buckmaster said that the forty percent affordable housing and the tenure split was good.  She was concerned however over why two bedroom flats were proposed when the local demand was for two bedroom houses for families.  She said that the application should be deferred to allow the developer to address a lot of the points of concern that had been raised on this scheme.  She also commented on the poor air quality and asked for clarification on what mitigation was planned for this.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that there was the framework of a travel plan which had been looked at by Hertfordshire County Council and Officers there had said this this document had set out a suitable travel plan for this stage of the application process.  She said that a condition requiring the submission of the full detailed travel plan had been applied and Section 106 provisions would cover improvements to sustainable transport in this area.

 

Members were advised that, as regards their concerns over building regulations, the policy requirements had been satisfied in that the standard that would be achieved was equal to the required benchmark set out by regulations.  The Officer said that the Environmental Health Officer had confirmed that two properties would experience noise levels that were slightly higher than they should be.  The Officer had stated that this was acceptable as there was alternative usable open space in the vicinity of this site.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that the matter of air quality was covered in the report and the mitigation measures included the provision of monies towards electric vehicle charging points and other measures included as part of this development.  The Environmental Health Officer was satisfied with these proposals for phase one and had said that this issue would be looked at again when phase two came forward for development to prevent further harm to the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

 

Members were advised that the Section 106 monies for leisure provision had to be tied down to specific projects at the nearest leisure facility.  The Officer said that if no project had been identified at Leventhorpe Pool and Gym, the nearest facility for funding would be Grange Paddocks in Bishop’s Stortford if a project had been identified there.

 

The Service Manager (Development Management) said that sustainability was a rapidly moving situation in terms of policy and the policy in the District Plan simply encouraged but did not require sustainability measures.  He said that this matter would be addressed through a review of the District Plan.

 

Councillor Kemp asked the Officers if the developer had given any reason for not achieving a better outcome in terms of the fabric first approach.  He asked for some guidance from the Legal Services Manager on the implications of deferring planning permission in this case.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that no explanation had been given as to why the applicant had not offered more terms of carbon dioxide emissions.  She said the developer was well aware of the Council’s aspiration for developers to do better but the application complied with policy and Officers could only apply the available policies.

 

Members were advised that the LAP did not have to contain any equipment but in this case some static climbing equipment was proposed.  The Officer confirmed to Councillor Kemp that Officers had gone back to the NHS to clarify the requirements for the Section 106 legal agreement in terms of where the money would go.

 

The Legal Services Manager said that deferral was an option for the Committee and the reasons for the deferral must be linked to planning grounds with reasoning for the deferral of planning permission.  She said that a deferral carried a risk of an appeal for non-determination if an application was not determined with set time frames or if there had been no extension of time agreement.

 

At this point (9:43 pm), it was proposed by Councillor Page and seconded by Councillor Bull that the Committee pass a resolution that the meeting should continue until the completion of the agenda.  After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.

 

Councillor Redfern expressed concerns regarding the affordable housing being located on the fringes of the development thereby exposing those residents to the worst of the noise and pollution.  She expressed concerns that these units had not been pepper potted throughout the development.

 

Councillor Page expressed a number of concerns regarding site sustainability and policy consistency.  He asked whether the traffic assessment dealt only with site access or did it also address issue surrounding local roads.  He commented on the lack of commentary on traffic modelling for the A1184 between Harlow and Bishop’s Stortford.

 

Councillor Page asked for some clarification around transport modal shift and the policy consistency of the proposed 217 car parking spaces when the policy requirement was for 156 spaces.  He said that he had seen nothing about self-build or custom build properties as covered by the provisions of the SAWB4 policy.

 

Councillor Kaye commented on page 116 of the report and covered secured cycle storage facilities being proposed for every dwelling and electric vehicle charging points being proposed in accordance with policy.  He asked whether the applicant could say this would not be provided if it was not secured by the conditions detailed in the report submitted.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that noise and air quality issues for occupants of the affordable housing were looked at by Environmental Health and Officers were satisfied that the living conditions were acceptable.  She confirmed that Hertfordshire Highways had looked at the area as a whole when assessing the impact of this application and highway improvements linked to other recently approved schemes.

The Principal Planning Officer said that there was nothing to prevent an applicant providing more spaces than the 25 percent less than the 208 required by policy.  She said that 156 could have been provided if there were good public transport connections and other accessibility benefits.  She said that the proposed parking was policy compliant.

 

Councillor Kemp asked whether an explanation could be given as to why Hertfordshire Highways had not considered the possibility of widening the road to allow for bus stops and avoid the need for other traffic having to stop or swing out past the stopped buses.

 

The Service Manager (Development Management) said that Hertfordshire Highways would only adopt roads that had been built to an adoptable standard.  The Head of Planning and Building Control said that this was a strategic site in the District Plan and she referred to the comments and concerns expressed by Members.  She said Members must be very clear as to any reasons for refusal or deferral.

 

The Chairman said that Members must determine the application that was in front of them and on the basis of the existing policy framework.  The Legal Services Manager confirmed that this was correct and she said that Members must base their decisions on the development plan unless there were other material planning considerations. 

 

Members were reminded that this was a strategic site in the District Plan and Members must give clear and convincing reasons for any refusal of planning permission.  The Legal Services Manager said that the implications of refusal could be an appeal and Members must be prepared to give evidence for their decisions at appeal proceedings.

 

Councillor Stowe proposed, and Councillor Page seconded, a motion that application 3/18/2735/FUL be granted subject to a legal agreement and the conditions set out at the end of the report and delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the Section 106 legal agreement and conditions.

 

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED –that (A) planning permission be grantedsubject to a legal agreement and the conditions set out at the end of this report; and

 

(B)   authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the Section 106 Legal Agreement and conditions.