Agenda item

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/20/0151/OUT, outline 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 Section legal agreement and conditions.

 

The Principal Planning Officer, on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, referred to the late representations summary that had been published online. She said that the outline application was for up to 223 residential dwellings on the site of the existing Bishop’s Stortford High School.

 

Members were reminded that the principle of the redevelopment had been established in principle as this was a strategic site in the District Plan and there was also a Master Plan associated with this site and this was in accordance with District Plan Policy DES1.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that the masterplan had indicated that the site could achieve more than 150 dwellings. She said that the increase for up to 223 dwellings was due to land not now being required for the adjoining Thorley Hill primary school due to the planned three forms of entry (3FE) school on the Bishop’s Stortford South site.

 

Members were advised that the report provided a summary of responses from statutory consultees and the principle of the residential use of the site had been established. The Principal Planning Officer said that the Highway Authority does not consider there to be existing highways safety issues and this development had not created any reason to refuse the application on highways grounds.

 

Members were advised that the Housing Officer was satisfied that the development proposed 40% affordable housing and the tenure split would be 75% affordable rent and 25% intermediate housing. The Housing Officer had acknowledged the policy requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in that 10% of affordable housing should be intermediate housing.

 

The Principal Planning Officer provided a slide presentation showing the outline of the application site from the District Plan. Members were shown the developable area that was available for this application.

 

The Committee was advised there were residential and landscaped elements to the site and there was a TPO area to the eastern side of the site plus a wooded area to the west known as The Spinney, which was on land owned by East Herts Council where all the trees were also protected.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that the proposed development comprised a mix of detached and attached dwellings plus some residential apartments of up to three stories. She said that there was a lot green space in the site masterplan and the access to this green space was covered by the conditions and the Section 106 legal agreement.

 

Members were also advised that the density of 30 units per hectare was similar to the adjoining housing developments.  The Principal Planning Officer said that there were conditions covering the provision of electric vehicle charging points for all dwellings plus some communal charging points.

 

She said that further tree planting would serve to shield the proposed development from adjoining properties and there was a requirement for a locally equipped area of play in the western portion of the site. Members were advised that the Highway Authority was satisfied with the proposed access and the site was well connected to the town centre and other local facilities.

 

Mr Dean addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Fordham and Mrs O’Neill spoke for the application.  Town Councillor Warnell addressed the Committee on behalf of Bishop’s Stortford Town Council. Councillor Wyllie addressed the Committee as a local ward Member.

 

Councillor Deering asked for some clarity regarding the efficacy of the master planning process. He said that it was his understanding that this matter had been reported to the Committee on the basis that the principle of the development had been established by virtue of the master planning process.

 

Councillor Deering sought some clarity as regarding the Neighbourhood Plan allocation of between 200 to 250 dwellings and the point made by Town Councillor Warnell about this being superseded by the District Plan.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said the NPPF talked about sustainable developments having economic and social objectives and this was a material consideration regarding the sale of the land. The applicant had detailed the consultation that had been undertaken in the submitted planning application.

 

Members were reminded that the masterplan followed the Council’s process and had been adopted, so it did carry weight in the decision making process. The Town Council speaker was correct in that the Neighbourhood Plan document had been superseded by the District Plan and other strategic sites had exceeded allocated figures based on the character and density of the area and other relevant factors.

 

Councillor Devonshire asked for some clarity regarding the capacity of London Road at peak times and he commented on the steep gradient of the access road. He welcomed the retention of trees and the additional tree planning and expressed concerns regarding the proximity of the proposed 3 storey apartments to the rear gardens of properties on Grace Gardens.

 

Councillor Buckmaster mentioned the traffic modelling and mitigation. She asked why the developer had been permitted to include one and two bedroom apartments when the local need was for two and three bedroom houses.

 

The Highways Group Manager for Development Management at Hertfordshire County Council said that Officers had looked at the access and conditions had been applied that had dictated the length and alignment of the proposed access. He referred to the trees and the associated TPO protections.

 

The Group Manager said that Section 106 monies of £323,000 were also for mitigation measures for Pig Lane in addition to supporting national cycle route 11. He said that the test for the traffic modelling for Beldams Lane and Haymeads Lane was whether the traffic impact would be severe, taking into account all other committed developments. He said that 29 vehicle movements per hour took place on London Road in the morning and evening peaks.

 

The Group Manager referred to scoping work and said that this was agreed very early on with developers. He said that scoping could only go so far as vehicles would dissipate onto different routes by the time traffic flows had reached Hockerill, particularly from a site that was so close to the town centre. He also referred to work that had taken place with the developer on sustainable transport mitigations like bus vouchers for the first year and a travel plan.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that the affordable housing provision carried some negative weight in that the indicative affordable unit mix provided a higher number of one and two bedroom flats compared to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). She said that she did have concerns regarding the 3 storey element of the proposed development being so close to a 2 storey dwelling.

 

Councillor Page said that local Members and residents had made a compelling case on the fragility of keeping to the plans for this site. He accepted the arguments on the efficient use of land and the NPPF. He referred to the planning policy and the District Plan number of around 150 units. He also raised concerns around the sustainability of this site, the traffic impact and the access arrangements for this site.

 

Councillor Redfern said that the affordable housing mix did not meet the stipulations of the SHMA and she did not feel that one breach made other breaches acceptable. She asked about what could be done about the cumulative effect of traffic come out of this site and in particular school journeys.

 

Councillor Crystall expressed concerns about the impact on traffic of primary school children being driven to a school at Bishop’s Stortford South in winter and he asked what exact mitigation was proposed for this site and how would this be funded.

 

The Group Manager said that one option was Section 278 works in the form of junction improvements and this included tactile paving to improve walking routes. He referred to Section 106 agreements work with the Hertfordshire Rights of Way section and other stakeholders to improve footpath and cycle routes in the wider area.

 

Members were advised that mitigations were being looked at for Pig Lane to stop rat running such as traffic regulation orders and Officers would have to model that solution to access the impact on other roads. The Group Manager said that bus priority measures had been talked about for a while for London Road. He also advised that various schemes often contributed to mitigating larger schemes.

 

Members were advised that the key issue was whether the increase in vehicle traffic could be judged to be severe and how this could be defined. The latest NPPF helped in that changes in 2018 and 2019 set out what that severe test was and this was defined in paragraph 109 of the NPPF document.

 

Members were advised that there had been a move away from capacity and the issue of congested junctions and the focus was now on promoting sustainable travel and modal shift. The LTP4 policy backed up the NPPF in that it supported a user hierarchy of pedestrians and cyclists first followed by buses with cars being given the lowest priority.

 

The Highways Officers commented at length about the net change that had been modelled in terms of the numbers of vehicle movements per hours on various routes away from this site on London Road.

 

The Service Manager (Development Management) said that the numbers in the Development Plan were not a cap on development and the inspector who had approved the Hert2 application had been very keen to make that point. The Inspector examining the District Plan changed the original wording from up to around.

 

Members were reminded that this was an outline application and the fact that the masterplan for this area had been approved by East Herts Council did carry weight. The Service Manager stated that in the appeal hearing relating to HERT2, the inspector had ruled that the masterplan did carry significant weight.

 

The Service Manager said that the SHMA contained strategic targets and not every development would those targets. He said that this document would have been out of date when the development plan was drafted.

 

The Legal Officer said that the sale of the land being used to fund the school and unless this was enabling development, it was not a planning matter unless this matter was part of the Section 106 legal agreement or covered by CIL regulations.

 

The Head of Planning of Building Control said that this was a planning application relating to specific proposals for an allocated site and the master planning had been prepared under policy DES1. She made reference to the Hert2 decision letter and reminded Members that the presence of a 5 year housing land supply in East Herts did not act as a cap on further development. Members were reminded that it was the application before for them for consideration and that the plan should be read as a whole with a number of relevant policies to be taken into consideration including HOU2 and DES4.

 

Councillor Kemp said that he would like some clarity from the Legal Officer as to whether approving 223 dwellings would be set in stone in terms of numbers of dwellings if Members approved this scheme. He also asked whether Members were committing to the proposed mix of housing and would some clarity about the ability of the infant school on Thorley Hill to cope with the proposed development. He asked about protection of the trees to the south side of the site to the north of the existing pathway and future cycleway.

 

Councillor Crystall raised a concern in respect of the air quality assessment and the results having an influence on the numbers of housing planned for this site. He asked for some clarity as to whether the assessment related to air quality from this site alone or from nearby roads as well. He also asked whether a poor figure in terms of air quality would mean that the houses numbers could be reduced or mitigated by the use of electric boilers.

 

Councillor Buckmaster said that the point about the out of date SHMA was a weak argument and she did not fully understand the 29 vehicle movements an hour in the context of a site for up to 223 houses. She stated that she was concerned about air quality in the area around London Road.

 

At this point (9:47 pm), it was proposed by Councillor Kemp and seconded by Councillor Buckmaster 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.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that she believed it would be very unlikely if it could be demonstrated that up to 223 dwellings was acceptable at the reserved matters stage in terms of appearance, layout, scale and landscaping terms. She said that the 400 square metres required for a local equipped area of play was not shown in the master planning document.

 

The Hertfordshire County Council Education representative explained the admissions policy in use in Hertfordshire. He said that the County Council had endorsed the current one form of entry primary school on Thorley Hill and was also supportive of the proposed three forms of entry primary school at Bishop’s Stortford South.

 

Councillor Andrews proposed, and Councillor Kemp seconded, a motion that application 3/20/0151/OUT 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 detailed in the report submitted; and

 

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