Agenda item

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect to application 3/19/1046/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and the reasons set out at the end of the report submitted.

 

The Head of Planning and Building Control also recommended that, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Building Control at East Herts Council, in consultation with the Director of Strategic Growth and Regeneration at Harlow District Council and with the Chairs of their respect Development Management Committees, to finalise the detail of the conditions attached to their respect planning permissions. If any subsequent additions or changes to conditions post Development Management Committee are necessary, the matter would be referred back to them.

 

The Senior Project Officer summarised the planned development of the Harlow and Gilston and Garden Town. She said that the five Council’s involved had been working in partnership to bring about the transformative growth based on garden city principles. Members were advised that the documents produced for the garden town partnership had been endorsed as being material considerations in the determination of the applications by East Herts Council and Harlow Council.

 

The Senior Project Officer summarised the ambitious targets detailed in the transport strategy and said that the two crossing proposals had been identified as being essential items of infrastructure necessary to deliver the planned growth within the garden town. She said that section nine of the reports had listed the relevant sections of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that were relevant to the planning matters being considered.

 

The Senior Project Officer listed the applications that had been submitted by Places for People. Members were advised that the main issues for the Committee to consider included the principle of the development, the design and layout, the mitigation of the impact on the transport network, climate change, flood risk and sustainable drainage, land contamination and pollution, impact on the natural environment, the impact on the historic environment and green belt issues.

 

The Senior Project Officer set out the policy context regarding this application and said that the Committee were being asked to determine the part of the application that fell within the East Herts administrative boundary. She said that Members should however be cognisant of the scheme as a whole.

 

The Senior Project Officer addressed the Committee in detail in respect of the Harlow Local Development Plan and spoke at length in respect of the geography of the site in the context of the surrounding area. Members were reminded that the applicant had to demonstrate that there were matters to which positive weight could be assigned such that any harm resulting from the proposed development in Green Belt and other planning terms was clearly outweighed and very special circumstances were therefore evident in accordance with the NPPF. Officers had acknowledged that the application would cause some harm to the openness of the green belt in this location.

 

Members were advised that the application proposals provide new essential transport infrastructure to enable and encourage sustainable movement between the new and existing Gilston communities to key destinations within Harlow as part of a wider sustainable transport network. 

 

The Senior Project Officer said that the sustainable transport solution and the provision of the homes in the Gilston Area were the factors that combined to clearly outweigh the harm to the green belt and other planning harm such that very special circumstances applied. She set out in detail the proposed layout of the Central Stort Crossing including the reconfiguration of the Eastwick Road and Fifth Avenue junction, the access to village one and the new junction to be provided on the Eastwick Road.

 

Members were advised that Eastwick Road would be realigned northwards away from Terlings Park and would continue eastwards as part of the Eastern Stort Crossing. The Senior Project Officer set out the proposed bus priority arrangements and as well as the dedicated pedestrian footways and cycle routes. She said that to the west of the carriageway there would be a 2 metre wide footpath and a sustainable drainage feature comprising swales and vegetated ditches.

 

Members were advised that there would be a new footpath and bridge over the River Stort to connect to the tow path to the south through the valley. The Senior Project Officer referred to presentation slides in respect of proposed pedestrian and cycle routes and bus lanes. She also highlighted various proposed public realm improvements which would be secured by condition on this application.

 

The Senior Project Officer said that as the new carriageway affected a local wildlife site and a nature reserve, the proposed development must mitigate this impact and the application would compensate for the loss of habitat through the provision of new planting and landscaping.

 

The Senior Project Officer said that to compensate for the loss of flood storage within the valley through the widening of an embankment feature, the proposals included the conversion of arable grassland to an area of flood plain by lowering ground levels to create an area of wetland habitat using seed collected from managed environments elsewhere within the valley.

 

The Senior Project Officer said that the applicant had applied a Natural England Biodiversity Impact Calculator known as the DEFRA three metric. She set out the biodiversity net gain percentages and explained how the metric calculated the scores for old and new environments. Members were advised that the difference between the current and proposed score was the biodiversity net gain or net loss.

 

The Senior Project Officer said that the ecological compensation area was beyond the red line site boundary of the central stort crossing application. The land was in the ownership of the applicant and therefore could be secured and was enforceable by condition 35 and this met the tests that were set out in planning practice guidance.

 

Members were advised that the main impact from the central stort crossing was the loss of habitat for ground nesting birds and this was sufficiently mitigated by the proposed habitat enhancements. The Senior Project Officer said that several conditions and an ecological management plan would ensure that the habitat was secure and managed in the longer term.

 

Members were advised of the trees and hedgerows that had been identified for complete and partial removal to facilitate the central stort crossing. The Senior Project Officer said that none of the trees to be removed were classed as category A of the highest quality and full details were included in the report. She referred to a visual illustration of the central stort crossing and set out a number of further details in respect of the proposed landscape strategy and said that there would be an overall increase in the number of trees and opportunities would be taken to remove invasive species and replace these with suitable plant species to introduce biodiversity and support mammals like Otters and Water Voles.

 

The Senior Project Officer said that the central and eastern stort crossings were two complementary parts of one piece of comprehensive transport infrastructure that would operate together to provide the sustainable transport priority and road capacity required to serve the Gilston area housing allocation and also to enable the delivery of developments within the Harlow and Gilston Garden Town.

 

Members were advised that the provision of essential infrastructure carried considerable positive weight and the proposed development was considered to be acceptable in principle. The Senior Project Officer said that it was considered that temporary visual harms to the landscape would arise during construction and there would be residual permanent visual harms arising from the scheme once operational. These impacts were considered to be outweighed by the beneficial impacts arising from the scheme.

 

Members were advised that the preliminary structural designs had been agreed with the two highway authorities and were considered to meet relevant standards. The proposals were also considered to meet the requirements of the Environment Agency (EA) and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA).

 

The Senior Project Officer said that whilst there would be some unavoidable impact on openness in green belt terms this was not considered to be significant. She said that the harms to the green belt and other identified harms must be given substantial weight. Members were advised that the benefits of the delivery of development in the Gilston Area, in addition to the transport capacity and sustainable transport improvements enabled Officers to conclude that the harm by reason of inappropriate development in the green belt and any other harm was clearly outweighed. Condition 4, proposed to be applied to any permission, would act to ensure that these benefits were forthcoming.

 

The Senior Project Officer said that when considering the application on its own merits, it was considered to be in accordance with the NPPF and was also compliant with development plans. She said that other material considerations supported the approval of the central stort crossing subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report.

 

Mr Rory Joyce, Mr Richard Ford and Yasmin Gregory addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Mr Yuved Bheenick spoke for the application. Councillor Frank O’Shea addressed the Committee as the Vice-Chairman of Hunsdon Parish Council.

 

Councillor E Buckmaster addressed the Committee as the local ward Member. The Senior Project Officer referred to the examination in public process for the local plan and said that Officers believed there was sufficient information in the environmental statement and the impact appraisal to make informed and reasoned judgements on these applications.

 

Members were advised that there was no benefit to delaying determining these applications as they had been considered comprehensively in the impact assessments and were considered to be acceptable in terms of highways impact and design. Members were reminded they must determine the applications that were in front of them.

 

The Garden Town Lead Officer referred to the judgement to be made in respect of weighing the benefits of the development proposed against any harm to be able to reach a view that very special circumstances, whereby otherwise inappropriate development could be permitted in the green belt, were apparent. He said that the advice to Members was that this infrastructure would enable the delivery of development that had been identified in the District Plan.

 

Councillor Devonshire commented on the achievability of the 60 percent transport mode share. He asked if there was a time limit for the creation of the ecological compensatory habitat. Councillor Ruffles commented at length about the heritage of tomorrow and the vision regarding the proposed major bridge and other bridge structures. He asked if Officers could explain the part of the route access to Harlow Town Station to the north which was relevant to this application.

 

Councillor Page asked for clarity as to whether existing users would be harmed by the superimposition of the sustainable corridors. He commented on the traffic calculations made at the pre-application stage and asked how much new capacity would be directed to the river way crossing.

 

The Senior Project Officer said that condition 35 covered the time limit and the delivery of biodiversity net gain and details had to be agreed with Officers prior to commencement of any development that resulted in the loss of habitat or habitat impact.

 

The Senior Project Officer commented on the ambition for the design of the bridge and the landmark brand in the design for this key gateway feature for Harlow and wider garden town. She commented on the stages of the bridge condition, the Burnt Mill Lane access on Fifth Avenue down to where the station access would be. Members were also advised on the part of the application that related to public realm improvements.

 

Roger Flowerday, Hertfordshire County Council Highways, set out the context and policy position for the central stort crossing. He talked about the vision for the crossing and said that a deferral would not result in a change in design as the proposed development satisfied Highways requirements in terms of what it was intended to achieve.

 

Mr Flowerday said that the crossing provided the ability of buses to operate and the cycling and pedestrian provision in line with the requirements set out in the current guidance. He said that the design and the dimensions allowed for full segregation in line with the current LTN1/20 government guidance. He confirmed that the infrastructure was designed to accommodate existing and all future use in terms of existing and future demand.

 

Councillor Crystall expressed a concern regarding the narrowing of one area of cycle and walking route and whether this should be avoided to ensure that the provision was easy and attractive and prevented accidents. He asked if the west side cycleway could be made a more attractive prospect in terms of being more protected.

 

Councillor Beckett made a number of points in respect of timings and the design, the attractiveness of the proposed development to users in terms of pollution and his concern over the loss of habitat during construction and the post construction mitigation that had been proposed.

 

Mr Flowerday said that the degree of separation for cyclists and pedestrians from bus lanes and live carriageways had been properly considered and a balance had been struck in terms of separation and the constraints of the area that was close to the railway. He talked about the benefits and disadvantages and said that the proposed provision was considered to be reasonable. Members were advised that the impacts had been fully considered by Officers in terms of reaching a fully balanced solution.

 

Mr Flowerday spoke about the HERT rapid transport scheme and the A414 strategy document. He talked about sensor monitoring for the signal arrangements in terms of air quality and said that a balance had been struck in terms of pollution mitigation as the scheme sought to move people as far away from the traffic as was possible and protect vulnerable users.

 

The Senior Project Officer said that the site was big enough in terms of ensuring biodiversity net gain. She said the impact on birds and bats was acknowledged in the environmental assessment. The Garden Town Lead Officer said that Members were considering a set of infrastructure proposals that served complementary purposes and fitted into wider policy objectives.

 

Councillor Kemp made a number of broad points about the District Plan and the planned 10,000 homes. He touched on the provision of infrastructure and made a number of comments about air quality, the opportunities for modal shift and segregation between various transport modes.

 

Councillor Huggins spoke about the complexities of biodiversity in terms of soil quality. He said that he would like some reassurance as to the intended level of monitoring of biodiversity beyond the assessment of the impact of the proposed development on trees and hedges. He talked about the shift in working patterns during the last two years and expressed a concern over the apparent lack of additional capacity from the central stort crossing.

 

Mr Flowerday said that the construction management plan set out how the impact of construction would be minimised and mitigated. He said that the design of the infrastructure had been designed to meet the vision of sustainable place. Members were advised that there would be some residual vehicle based impact and the scheme provided the opportunity for people to switch to sustainable modes of travel.

 

The Garden Town Leader Officer confirmed that Network Rail were, in principle, fully on board with the proposed northern access to Harlow Town Station and still ensure that their primary objective was achieved, namely the technical operation of the railway. Members asked some general questions regarding the proposed conditions and were given advice by the Legal Officers, the Senior Project Officer and the Garden Town Lead Officer.

 

Councillor Newton asked about the context of the application and the letter received before the meeting. She asked if Officers were content that the matter of an intended judicial review had been covered. The Principle Associate for Weightmans said that all appropriate steps had been taken to consider and respond to the points that had been raised in the letter. She said that there was no legal impediment to Members voting on the application.

 

Councillor Kemp proposed and Councillor P Ruffles seconded a motion that, in respect of application 3/19/1046/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and the reasons detailed in the report with an amendment to condition 11 to ensure that any design briefing included an engagement strategy. Delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Building Control at East Herts Council, in consultation with the Director of Strategic Growth and Regeneration at Harlow District Council and with the Chairs of their respect Development Management Committees, to finalise the detail of the conditions attached to their respect planning permissions. If any subsequent additions or changes to conditions post Development Management Committee were necessary, the matter would be referred back to them.

 

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

 

RESOLVED – that (A) planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and the reasons set out at the end of the report submitted, with an amendment to condition 11 to ensure that any design briefing included an engagement strategy;

 

(B)   delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Building Control at East Herts Council, in consultation with the Director of Strategic Growth and Regeneration at Harlow District Council and with the Chairs of their respect Development Management Committees, to finalise the detail of the conditions attached to their respect planning permissions. If any subsequent additions or changes to conditions post Development Management Committee are necessary, the matter would be referred back to them.