Agenda item

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/20/1950/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement and the conditions set out at the end of the report and with delegated Authority being granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the legal agreement and conditions. The application would be refused in the event an acceptable legal agreement was not completed within 3 months of the Committee's decision.

 

The Development Management Team Manager referred Members to the late representations summary and detailed the late representations that had been received. She set out the background to the development and explained that the site was 0.7 hectares and sat immediately to the north of a development of 65 dwellings which were under construction by the same developer.

 

Members were advised that the site immediately to the south had been initially determined by the planning inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate had determined that the constraints presented by the limited width of Aspenden Road were not a constraint to future development of this site.

 

The Development Management Team Leader said that outline application was therefore granted with a requirement for road improvement width to be improved prior to occupation of any dwelling. She said that the Council had since granted a further full planning application for an increased number of residential units on the same site and the factors considered by the planning inspectorate were taken on board in the determination of that application.

 

Members were reminded that the width of the road was not considered to be a development constraint and an Officer was present from the highway authority who had worked with the developers to make further improvements to what had been secured by the planning inspectorate in terms of improving the width of Aspenden Road.

 

Members were advised that the proposals would provide 23 dwellings and the density and the layout was considered to be acceptable. The Development Management Team Leader said that affordable housing will be achieved at 40%, which equated to 9 units being provided on the site. She said that 56 car parking spaces would be provided and no reduction had been applied as there was a Neighbourhood Plan requirement for a higher level of car parking.

 

The Committee was advised that Officers had balanced other requirements when assessing the application, as required by the Neighbourhood Plan in terms of the distances between dwellings. In the interests of appropriate design, it had not been possible to achieve the 67 parking spaces that would normally be required.

 

Members were reminded that it was not always possible to satisfy every policy requirement on every application. The Development Management Team Leader said that the scheme was not considered to adversely affect the amenity of any neighbouring occupier and Officers felt that the conditions and planning obligations set out in the report would make this application an acceptable form of development.

 

The Development Management Team Leader presented the key features of the application. She said that a condition would be applied that the garages would be retained. Matthew Armstrong, Hertfordshire Highways, set out the background to the application.

 

Mr Armstrong commented on the planning history and the appeal. He said that it had been decided that the appeal could be defended based on the planning history. He said that refusal had been recommended on the basis of the constraints of Aspenden Road and policy LTP4 and the very firm user hierarchy emphasis on accommodating the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport over and above the private motor car.  

 

Members were advised that the  proposed signal arrangement submitted by the applicant  helped in terms of sustainable travel and accessibility of the site. Mr Armstrong spoke at length about the proposed improvements for pedestrians and various other improvements on site. He concluded that the proposed changes had resulted in the objection from Highways Officers being withdrawn.

 

Councillor Jones addressed the Committee at length as the local ward Member.

 

Councillor Kemp said that it would be helpful to know to what extent the Committee could comment on, request conditions or suggest changes in respect of proposed highways works. He asked whether the site had been referred to in the Buntingford Neighbourhood Plan and in particular, had this site been suggested as a local green space. Councillor Kemp spoke about sustainable transport and commented on the footpath access to the site and the easy egress routes to Fairfields and Crouch Gardens in terms of the benefits to this application and the nearby site for 65 houses.

 

The Development Management Team Leader said that this site was not designated as a green space in the Neighbourhood Plan and the site was not allocated in the plan for any particular form of development. Members were advised that the site had therefore been assessed as a windfall site.

 

The Development Management Team Leader said that access could not be obtained from the east of the site as this land was not in the ownership of the developer. Councillor Andrews said that the application was just at the level of acceptability. He said the matter of highways was a key consideration and he was not convinced that the proposed ameliorations would be effective. He also expressed a concern about the very regular flooding of the road in the context of the proposed installation of sensitive electrical equipment.

 

Mr Armstrong said that the signalised scheme would cover a 70 metre stretch of Aspenden Road and two vehicles would no longer be passing each other and mounting the footway. He said that the scheme would result in a better environment for pedestrians and was more in accordance with policy LTP4 in terms of sustainable travel and the management of traffic flow. He commented on the cost of the scheme being covered by the developer and the wider public benefits of the scheme. He said that the signalised scheme was necessary and met the tests in the condition and was necessary to make the application acceptable in a planning context.

 

Mr Armstrong mentioned the White House and said that this unusual arrangement was used very effectively in another part of the county. He said that the detail of the arrangements would be covered by a section 278 agreement stage and one option was for a push button activation of the traffic signals or a remote control would achieve the green signal. He set out other options including a movement sensor system and talked about the trigger points for when the scheme would have to be completed.

 

Councillor Crystall commented on the issue of sustainability of the highways arrangements. He asked about the concerns expressed in respect of odours and the matter of the 10% biodiversity net gain and an offsite compensation area.

 

Councillor Beckett expressed a concern that a 3% improvement in terms of energy efficiency over the base building was woeful. He said that there was no mention of low VOC products in the sustainability statements and expressed concerns about the generic sustainability assessments included with the application.

 

Councillor Beckett said that the site was being developed too intensively and the only redeeming feature was the 40% affordable housing. He expressed a concern that there was no children’s play area proposed by the application and commented on the lack of any legacy for future residents. He asked about the future maintenance costs of the proposed signalised traffic control given the propensity for flooding that had been identified in this location.

 

Councillor Andrews addressed the Committee at length in respect of highways, flooding and sustainability. Councillor Page asked if the site worked in terms of sustainability in this location. He asked for some clarity as to the definition of a flood risk activity permit and why this was needed.

 

The Development Management Team Leader confirmed that the applicant did not own the site to the east and the ownership was unknown. She said that securing the use of the landscape strip to east giving views into that site was the best that could be achieved.

 

Members were advised that the matter of odour management from the treatment plant to the west of the site was a consideration on the previous application to the south of the site.

 

The Development Management Team Leader said that Thames Water was happy with the discharge of a condition on that application and Thames Water had been consulted on this application and had raised no objection. She said that the biodiversity net gain was 30 years and advised that the density of the scheme was considered to be on the lower side of a medium range density and it was not considered to be necessary to reduce the density.

 

The Development Management Team Leader said that the matter of play space was addressed in the Section 106 agreement and reminded Members of the nearby 0.6 metres of open space. The application included generous gardens and Officers felt that the proposed green space was acceptable and the proposed open space contributions were proportionate to the number of dwellings.

 

Members were reminded that that the northern part of the site was not in a flood zone and the Environment Agency had not objected to the application and a flood risk activity permit might be required in respect of highways works.

 

The Highways Officer addressed the Committee in respect of policy LTP4 and the LTA120 guidance. He also talked about the Section 278 process and maintenance of signals and other highway features. Members were advised that flooding on the road that was already in place would be identified by a stage three road safety audit. He said vegetation encroaching on the footways would be cut back if this application was approved and ongoing maintenance would be picked as part of the Section 278 agreement.

 

The Development Management Team Leader addressed the Committee in respect of flooding, the benefits of the scheme in terms of road improvements and affordable housing provision.

 

The Highway Officer commented on the wider obvious public benefits resulting from the proposed and necessary highways works. He said that on that basis, Highways Officers had not asked for any Section 106 money and there was a condition included regarding pedestrian drop kerbs and tactile paving and a tighter turn radius at the junction onto Aspenden Road. Members were advised that the Highways network management team who would consider traffic management and there was a construction traffic management plan condition on the application.

 

The Legal Services Manager explained that any conditions would need to satisfy all of the usual legal tests, in terms of being necessary and reasonable. She confirmed that a delegation of conditions would be Officer led and would not involve the consultation of a local ward Member. Members were advised that consultation with local Members in line with the Constitution would be in respect of minor amendments or variations of schemes.

 

The Legal Services Manager said that decisions of the Committee must be based upon very clear planning reasons that were linked to District Plan policies. Members should keep in mind that any deferral would need to be of benefit to the Committee in terms of a solid planning reason that Members feel would benefit from further discussions between Officers and the applicant in order to resolve any issues of concern. The Legal Services Manager sounded a note of caution in respect of statutory time frames for the determination of planning applications.

 

At 9.45pm, Councillor Andrews proposed and Councillor Kemp seconded, a motion that the meeting continue until the remaining business on the Agenda had been determined.

 

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

 

RESOLVED –that the meeting continue until the remaining business on the Agenda had been determined.

 

The Committee had a general debate and discussion in respect of conditions. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 pm for a brief period of five minutes.

 

The meeting reconvened at 10 pm and the Service Manager (Development Management and Enforcement) advised that Condition 10 already had sufficient provision for the exploration of opportunities for temporary traffic lights under criteria C and traffic management requirements. The Highways Officer suggested that the recently introduced industry wide 2 clocks standards for a construction traffic management plans be included in criteria C of Condition 10.

 

The Service Manager (Development Management and Enforcement) said that Condition 11 would be amended to include the word integrated and Condition 29 would be amended to cover the permeability of the fencing. She said that the landscaping Condition 8 would include the wording for a minimum period of 30 years in the last criteria.

 

Members were advised that an informative would be included in respect of exploring the opportunities for an eastern access. Members were also advised that there was already sufficient provision within the conditions for funding for community transport and a community centre.

 

Councillor Andrews proposed and Councillor Kemp seconded, a motion that application 3/20/1950/FUL be granted, subject to an additional informative, the amended conditions and the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement and the conditions set out at the end of the report. Delegated authority was being granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the legal agreement and conditions and the application would be refused in the event an acceptable legal agreement was not completed within 3 months of the Committee's decision.

 

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

 

RESOLVED –that (A) in respect of application 3/20/1950/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement and the conditions set out at the end of this report and subject to the following amended conditions and an additional informative:

 

·               criteria c under condition 10 be amended to include a reference to the recently introduced industry wide 2 clocks standards for construction traffic management plans;

 

·               condition 11 be amended to include the word integrated in respect of bird and bat boxes;

 

·               condition 29 be amended to cover the permeability of the fencing;

 

·               the landscaping condition 8 would include the wording for a minimum period of 30 years in the last criteria;

 

·               an informative would be included in respect of the exploration of opportunities for an eastern access.

 

(B)   delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the legal agreement and conditions; and

 

(C)   the application would be refused in the event that an acceptable legal agreement was not completed within 3 months of the Committee's decision.