Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

 

 

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect to application 3/19/1045/OUT, planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 legal agreement first being entered into and the proposed conditions set out at the end of this report and delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the Section 106 Legal Agreement and draft planning conditions annexed (including delegated authority to add to, amend or delete conditions).

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader set out a comprehensive policy context for the allocated application site and explained in detail the future master planning process including the intended master plan delivery of the proposed 8,500 houses on the 993 hectares that comprised the application site.

 

Members were advised of the planning history and were reminded of the decisions reached by the Committee in respect of the Central and Eastern Stort Crossings in February 2022 and also of the decision in respect of Fiddlers Bridge. The Gilston Area Team Leader said that a separate application for village 7 for 1,500 homes had been submitted.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader summarised the key issues that Members should consider when determining the application. She said that Officers considered that application 3/19/1045/OUT conformed to the requirements of policy GA1 and there was no in principle reason for Members to refuse the application.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader set out the intended master plan delivery for the 8,500 homes and explained that the scheme no longer supported the provision of 40% affordable housing for viability reasons. She addressed the committee in respect of the parameter plans and spoke in detail about hedgerow and woodlands buffers and green corridors.

 

Members were advised that each village would have a village centre for community uses and she spoke at length in respect of building heights and height restrictions across the site. The Gilston Area Team Leader set out the proposed enhancements for protecting the natural environment and said that there was no risk of tidal or groundwater flooding. She also spoke at length in respect of climate change, flood risks and sustainable drainage.

 

Members were advised of the proposed education provision and the proposed enhancements for protecting and enhancing the natural environment. The Gilston Area Team Leader spoke at length about heritage and ecological assets and talked about the aspiration that 60% of trips would be made by active sustainable modes of transport.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader addressed several key transport considerations and detailed the locations of the Village 1 all modes access as well as the interim and final access points for Village 2. The Gilston Area Team Leader touched on the matter of the weight restriction on Eastwick Road and said that the Village 6 access had been worked up on the basis that this would still work should Village 7 not be built. She addressed Members at length regarding the accesses for Villages 6 and 7 and talked about the protection and enhancement of the historic built environment.

 

Members were advised that no heritage assets would be demolished. The Gilston Area Team Leader referred to statutory duties in relation to heritage assets and said that the wider public benefits of the proposed development outweighed the harm in relation to heritage assets. She addressed the Committee at length in respect of land contamination and pollution and talked about the introduction of an urban form of development into a rural area that was devoid of artificial lighting.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader detailed the recommendation that was being made, subject to the Section 106 legal agreement and the draft planning conditions. The Specialist Planning Solicitor summarised in detail the late representations that had been received. He said that Officers had responded to the late representations within the additional representations summary documents and Officers has also set out several updates to the committee report, including the Section 106 Heads of Terms. He said that Members of the Development Management Committee had all been asked to arrive early to provide opportunity to read the late representations and related documents.

 

Rory Joyce, Kirsty Elliot, Yasmin Gregory, Richard Ford, Angus Hudson and Peter Hannaford addressed the committee in objection to the application. Yuveed Bhenick spoke for the application.

 

Anthony Bickmore addressed the Committee as the Chairman of the Hunsdon, Eastwick and Gilston Neighbourhood Plan Group. Sue Fogden addressed Members on behalf of the Hertfordshire and Essex Integrated Care Board. Councillor E Buckmaster addressed the Committee as the local ward Member for Hunsdon.

 

Councillor Deering proposed and Councillor Kemp seconded, a motion for an adjournment from 13:40 to 14:10. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED. Members were reminded that they should not discuss the application with anyone during the adjournment period.

 

RESOLVED – that the meeting be adjourned for 30 minutes from 13:40 to 14:10.

 

The meeting reconvened at 14:14. The Chair provided an opportunity for Officers to respond to points raised by those speaking against and for the application. The Gilston Area Team Leader said that the site was no longer in green belt by virtue of the District Plan allocation. She said that a single environmental impact assessment scoping opinion had originally been carried out and the site had been comprehensively considered in this respect subsequently through the EIA process. With regard to the land remaining for development as part of the Gilston Area allocation and outside the site of this application, Members were advised that the agreed approach relating to the two separate applications for the Gilston Area was that each site was going to assess the other through a cumulative assessment of impact of both application sites and other sites in the local area.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that the only thing that was required from the Village 1 to 6 application from the Village 7 scheme was the matter of two sports pitches. She said that there were options for additional adult pitches in one of the Villages 1 to 6 and these could be overlaid with a junior and mini pitches. Members were advised that this had to be weighed up alongside the considerable sports provision that were to be provided in all other respects.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that the matter of the reliance on the Village 7 site for gypsy and traveller pitches was a matter of agreement between the applicants in terms of how the allocation of 15 pitches were to be divvied up. She explained that this was considered beneficial as the needs of different groups of gypsies and travellers were very different. Officers had concluded in the report that the benefits justified the grant of permission and that the Village 1 to 6 application would be acceptable if Village 7 did not come forward.

 

The Specialist Planning Solicitor said that Officers had concluded that the environmental information that had been submitted was sufficient and adequate. He said that the “project” for the purposes of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) was Villages 1 to 6 plus the river crossings. Members were advised that Officers were satisfied that the north to centre sustainable transport corridor (STC) and the wider STC network throughout Harlow was a separate project to be delivered by separate bodies. He explained that this development was making a proportionate financial contribution but was not reliant on that STC network coming forward and there would be no occupation restriction linked to delivery of the STC network..

 

The Specialist Planning Solicitor said that Officers had made a professional planning judgement that the environmental statement was adequate and sufficient. He explained that the information in respect of Village 7 was considered by Officers to be sufficient to determine this application. Members would not be imposing requirements in respect of Village 7 application at this meeting and the Heads of Terms in respect of Villages 1-6 for the Section 106 were of sufficient detail and were comprehensive. The Committee was advised that the expected obligations in respect of Village 7 were for information purposes only.

 

The Specialist Planning Solicitor said that Villages 1 to 6 were not considered by Officers to be dependent on Village 7 coming forward and the planning permissions for the Eastern and Central Stort Crossings were valid and could be relied upon notwithstanding the judicial review challenge unless and until those permissions were quashed by a court. The Specialist Planning Solicitor set out the legal position in respect of the Eastern and Central Stort Crossings and the latest position in respect of the judicial review proceedings, noting that permission to bring judicial review proceedings had twice been refused by the courts on the basis that the claims were considered unarguable and a final decision was expected from the Court of Appeal on the latest appeal.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that the council had resources in place to deal with and monitor the application going forward in respect of the Section 106 agreement and the conditions. Members were advised that the impact on the woodland had been comprehensively considered and the matter of green belt was not applicable as the District Plan allocation removed the site from the green belt.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that applicants were entitled to consider the viability of the scheme in terms of the provision of affordable housing during the consideration of the application proposals.

 

The Specialist Planning Solicitor said that the council had received specialist viability valuation advice and this report had indicated that there was a reasonable basis for moving forward. Members were advised that an upwards only viability review would be secured in the Section 106 agreement going forward in the hope that viability and the level of affordable housing would improve.

 

The Specialist Planning Solicitor said that there had been absolute transparency in respect of the changes that had been made to the application and in particular changes to the minimum level of affordable housing.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that pupil yield modelling followed the Hertfordshire County Council approach which was that 500 homes equated to the 1 form of entry. She set out in detail the comprehensive work that had been carried out in collaboration with Hertfordshire County Council in respect of education planning. Members were advised that habitat assessments had been carried out correctly and these had been assessed by Herts Ecology and Natural England.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that assessment work had been undertaken in respect of length and width of vehicles gaining access to the proposed gypsy and traveller sites via the current country lanes in the area. She referred to an occupation needs assessment that had been undertaken and said that there had been meetings with gypsy and traveller liaison groups and the travelling show guild to understand accommodation needs and identify suitable locations.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that the modelling had showed that most of the transport impact would be felt in Harlow and the surrounding major roads. She said that where transport impacts arose there was a need by default that that these impacts should be mitigated. Members were advised that this mitigation had been included in the Section 106 legal agreement.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that it was right and proper that commensurate funds were put towards key infrastructure and funded from the development that created the need for that infrastructure. She said that it was expected that there would be infrastructure for Villages 1 to 6 funded by contributions from Village 7 and vice versa in respect of sport facilities.

 

The Specialist Planning Solicitor said that, as noted in the Section 106 heads of terms, the key commitments from the developer would be the timing of the delivery of the central and eastern Stort crossings and there would be limits on the numbers of housing which could be occupied before those crossings were delivered.

 

Mr Flowerday, Hertfordshire Highways, said that in respect of the central Stort crossing, the evidence submitted to support the application did not demonstrate that there would be an unacceptable severe impact as a consequence of the identified trigger for its delivery and there was no evidence that this crossing was required sooner.

 

Mr Flowerday said that this was a very large application, and it was quite right that Officers only seek to mitigate the impacts that could be seen in the evidence. He said that Officers had sought to introduce the appropriate safeguards to allow them to continually monitor the situation and react accordingly. He referred in particular to the impact on the villages and Officers had taken every reasonable step to mitigate what we can see now and take steps to mitigate against any future eventualities.

 

The Specialist Planning Solicitor said that the recommendation of officers, in line with standard practice, was that delegated authority was given to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detailed legal drafting of the Section 106 agreement to secure the headline commitments set out in the heads of terms.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that Officers did not feel that sufficient evidence had been put forward to justify the CIL tests that made it necessary for this application to deal with shortfalls in funding and infrastructure within the NHS, particularly in relation to acute care capacity. She said that there would however be a facility on the site that would meet the day to day needs of residents and would mitigate the impacts from the development in terms of primary healthcare needs.

 

Douglas Edwards, KC, said that the matter of a contribution towards acute services had been tested in the High Court recently in respect of a large residential development. He said that on the facts of that case the court upheld a decision of an LPA not to require an acute care contribution due to insufficient evidence to demonstrate a temporary gap in NHS funding which should be covered by the developer. Mr Edwards noted that the provision of acute NHS services was generally a matter that was paid for by tax and it would not normally be the case that a developer would be expected to fund acute NHS services via Section 106 contributions.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader spoke at length in terms of infrastructure and transport modelling. She said that the Sawbridgeworth Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) was in exceedance. Members were advised that the evidence and trends demonstrated that the frequency of exceedanceincidents was decreasing.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that there would be no worsening of the flood risk as result of this proposed development. She said that all the policy requirements to ensure that flood risk did not occur because of this scheme had all been met. Mr Flowerday said that safeguards were in place within the Heads of Terms of the Section 106 agreement. He said that the original application did not include the Sawbridgeworth contribution and steps had now been taken to secure this once the unmitigated impact on Sawbridgeworth had been identified.

 

Councillor Deering proposed and Councillor Rutland-Barsby seconded, a motion for an adjournment from 15:20 to 15:40. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED. Members were reminded that they should not discuss the application with anyone during the adjournment period.

 

RESOLVED – that the meeting be adjourned for 20 minutes from 15:20 to 15:40.

 

The meeting reconvened at 15:41. Councillor Ruffles commented on why a particular location had been chosen for accommodating travelling show people instead of pepper potting this provision around the site. Councillor Ruffles said that he was content with the position that had been taken in respect of historic structures. He stressed the importance of the protection of pillboxes on the airfield.

 

Councillor Ruffles commented on the proposed environment created between newly constructed buildings. He highlighted the importance of maintaining sightlines to protect the settings of historic structures. He expressed a concern regarding the protections for tributary corridors and habitats.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said the location of the gypsy and the traveller site had been chosen to allow access to grazing land and recreation space. She said that the two larger facilities were chosen to accommodate the way that families collaborated to buy and occupy sites. Members were advised that 7 to 8 pitches was considered optimal.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that, in relation to Hunsdon Airfield, 14 individual assets were covered under 1 scheduled monument designation. She advised on the heritage work that would be come forward through the conservation management plans. Members were advised on habitat buffers in terms of where development could occur.

 

Councillor Kemp asked in respect of school provision being provided in each village in the September in the year after the first occupation of any houses. He asked if this was secured by condition. He asked about the process of charging the NHS market rent for premises and commented on whether there was a point at which healthcare facilities were due to be delivered.

 

Councillor Kemp asked about the level of flexibility that existed in the Section 106 heads of terms in respect of NHS funding requirements and in respect of the improvements to Pye Corner being funded by Villages 1 to 6 should Village 7 not go ahead. He talked at length in respect of the sustainable transport corridor and heavy construction traffic not using parts of the existing narrow road network.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that the school provision would be secured by the Section 106 agreement. The Specialist Planning Solicitor said that the heads of terms had set out the requirement for the developer to reserve the land for education purposes and that the County Council could call for the sites. He confirmed that it was intended to be Hertfordshire County Council’s responsibility to ensure that schools were designed, planned and built on time, with flexibility built in for the owner to deliver a school with the agreement of the County Council.  The owner would provide the land and funding for delivery of the schools.

 

Members were advised that it was a fairly standard approach for Section 106 agreements to adopt an approach whereby the NHS was charged a market rent for premises and referred to GP practices typically paying rent. The Specialist Planning Solicitor said that whilst there were some Section 106 examples of freehold transfer of land to the NHS, the preference of Officers of the local planning authority (LPA) was for the developer to deliver the facility with an agreed specification and by an agreed trigger point. He noted that this would the default position but, following the representations of the NHS, flexibility has been built into the Heads of Terms for all parties to agree an alternative approach to delivery.

 

Councillor Fernando made a point of order in that the Development Management Committee was not political and Members attended the meetings of the Committee with an open mind and determined each application on its planning merits. He commented on the buffer zones that had been recommended by Natural England.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that the obligation of the Pye Corner improvement works was tied into the approval of the Eastern Stort Crossing application and the conditions. She detailed the locations of the travelling show people uses and also set out the locations for the gypsy and traveller use.

 

Members were advised that once the main roads and access routes had been built these would become the main routes into the site for construction traffic. The Gilston Area Team Leader talked about mode share objectives and the use of the master planning design assessment to prevent the use of the A414 for through access for construction traffic and to promote the use of haul roads and the sustainable transport corridor as possible alternative options.

 

Councillor Andrews touched on the importance of policy and ongoing monitoring and enforcement of matters such as wheel washing and hours of construction. He asked for assurance that the policy, authority, responsibility, and the wherewithal to protect the interests of residents.

 

Councillor Beckett expressed concerns in respect of the woodland areas and the aerodrome and whether provision would be made for car parking and access routes. He talked about the figures for biodiversity net gain and whether the biodiversity commitment of 10% biodiversity net gain could be increased as a minimum requirement to safeguard the biodiversity figures for hedgerows, habitats and watercourses.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader and the Specialist Planning Solicitor made several points in respect of stewardship costs and applicant’s proposed strategy in respect of stewardship. Members were also given some general advice in respect of biodiversity net gain and green corridors.

 

Councillor R Buckmaster said that one of her concerns was community infrastructure and she was asking if the residents of the local area, including from Terlings Park, Pye Corner, High Wych, Gilston, Hunsdon and Eastwick, would have access to schools and health facilities. The Gilston Area Team Leader said that the proposal was that the health centre will be completed by around 2000 or 2,500 properties and the community centre facility would be used for temporary health care facilities, subject to consultation with the NHS through the Section 106 agreement process.

 

Sarah McLoughlin, HCC Growth and Infrastructure Unit, said that the education authority would have to comply with the national admissions code and serve the local community as much as serving future residents.

 

Councillor Redfern asked why the development was referred to as a collection of villages and this description she felt was very misleading. She expressed significant concerns in respect of the reduction in the percentage of affordable homes. She noted the upward revision to 23% and asked if Members could really agree to the decimation of bird life and other biological habitats by weighing this up against the wider public benefits going forward.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader talked about the tests set out in the NPPF in respect of habitats and the impacts on ecological assets when compared to the wider public benefits. She also touched on the duty on the Authority to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply.

 

The Specialist Planning Solicitor explained that there would be a detailed monitoring report from the developer which set out the number of dwellings occupied and which related obligations had been complied with. He said that there would be significant monitoring costs of the LPA paid for by the developer.

 

The Head of Planning and Building Control said that District Plan policy DEL4 (monitoring of the Gilston area) was set out in chapter 25 of the District Plan, on page 317 in respect of delivery and monitoring. She said that this section recognised the complexity of the Gilston area and covered the monitoring of progress on an annual basis.

 

Councillor Crystall asked about the mitigation of biodiversity net gain and asked about the buffers for waterways and mitigation and protections for ecosystems in the Stort valley. He touched on the concerns of the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust and the comment from the objection from the Conservation and Design Team from 2021 in respect of the lack of sustainability targets.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader spoke at length in respect of mitigating the impact of the development on the Stort Valley and the ongoing long term management burden if significant amounts of new habitat had been created.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that the applicant had produced an up-to-date energy statement, and this included an ambition of being net zero carbon by 2035. She said that modelling by the applicant had shown that between 50% to 75% above the part L building regulations standards was achievable. Members were advised that there would be no gas anywhere on the site and all properties would have photovoltaic cells as well as several other sustainability measures.

 

The Specialist Planning Lawyer referred to the late representations report in respect of advice regarding the relevance of the Housing Infrastructure Grant (HIG) funding to the determination of this planning application and noted that as per such report HIG in and of itself this was not a material planning consideration. He said that it was one of many inputs into the viability assessment submitted by the applicant which was intended to assist viability. Mr Flowerday said that it was intended that if planning permission was granted there would be access to the funding to help forward fund the mitigation of impacts of the development and the repayment and recycling of the fundingcould accelerate delivery of other infrastructure across the garden town.

 

Councillor Fernando said that once residents had moved in and got used to use non sustainable modes of transport prior to the full opening of the sustainable travel corridor, getting them to shift to using more sustainable modes could be very difficult.

 

Councillor Buckmaster expressed a concern that residents of surrounding settlements would not feel the benefits and the added value of the proposed development as they would be impacted by construction traffic, extra traffic, air and light pollution.

 

Mr Flowerday said that there were options to limit the amount of turning movements that could go through Pye Corner. He talked about the Traffic Management Act part 6 powers due to be made available to Officers which could include camera enforcement. Members were advised about the county travel survey data report and they were also advised about the opportunities and facilities to be made available to link up to the Sustainable Travel Corridor.

 

In reply to a query from Councillor Fernando in respect of the scheme of delegation and other applications, the Legal Services Manager said that the constitution was very specific in that finalising of the wording of the conditions was delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control once the Development Management Committee had granted planning permission. Members were also advised that finalising the heads of terms of Section 106 legal agreements was also delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control.

 

Councillor Crystall asked about any mechanisms for ensuring that there was retail food selling in each village. He also asked about the potential appearance of the sustainable travel corridor and what steps would be taken to prevent this route becoming clogged preventing buses from getting through. He asked if there was anywhere else where this level of modal shift had been achieved.

 

Mr Flowerday said that Officers had had the benefit of seeing the development of the master planning. He said that this had given him the confidence that what he had intended to happen was going to happen. He spoke at length about modal shift and the intended appearance of the sustainable travel corridor.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that the very definition of the use classes now as Officers knew them was flexibility and classes e and f covered most town centre type uses. She referred to these uses as being referred to in the NPPF as main town centre type uses and spoke at length about the critical mass of development required to support retail.

 

Councillor Rutland-Barsby said that reserved matters applications were determined under delegated powers. She referred to the process whereby elected local ward Member of East Herts Council could request that the Chairman of the Development Management Committee call matters in for determination by the Committee.

 

The Legal Services Manager confirmed that this was correct under the rules set out in the constitution and there was a form for Members to complete in that respect and applications were dealt with under delegated powers unless the Chairman had confirmed the referral request.

 

Councillor Deering invited Officers to make a comment in respect of Otters, in relation to a petition that had been received by the council 18 months ago. The Gilston Area Team Leader said that the nature of the tributary valleys within the application area weren’t conducive to habitation by otters. She said that the habitat that was suitable was that within the Stort Valley and not within the tributary valleys.

 

Councillor Deering commented on the availability of GP facilities and he asked to what degree were GP facilities part of the project and to what degree could Members stipulate that there should be GP facilities.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that the evidence submitted by the NHS suggested that would be a need for 10 GPs due to the overall Gilston area allocation. She said that the floorspace provided for primary healthcare within Village 1 was 3,512 square metres and this included space for mental health and community health care.

 

The Head of Planning and Building Control said that it was for Members to determine the application that was in front of them. She said that what was being proposed in the report and the heads of terms of the Section 106 legal agreement contained the appropriate hooks in terms of enforcement and it would be a matter for the council in the future as to whether it would be expedient to take action if any issues arose.

 

The Specialist Planning Solicitor said that if there were fundamental changes to what was being determined, these changes would need to come back to Committee and there was case law that supported that standard practice. He explained that the delegation being sought was that the Section 106 legal agreement must secure the items that had been set out in the Heads of Terms.

 

Councillor Deering asked about the master planning processes and stewardship arrangements in terms of the public being able to input into the process going forward. The Garden Town Lead Officer set out the stewardship arrangements as part of the wider community engagement process.

 

The Gilston Area Team Leader said that the process of master planning was a collaborative endeavour between the applicant, East Herts Council and also various stakeholders. She reminded Members that the council endorsed each masterplan as well as part of the democratic process.

 

Councillor Andrews proposed and Councillor Rutland-Barsby seconded a motion that, in respect of application 3/19/1045/OUT, planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 legal agreement first being entered into and subject to the proposed conditions, as amended by table b, and that Officers report back to the Committee in 12 months’ time in relation to the subsequent monitoring of the development unless there was a constitutional reason why this was not possible.

 

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

 

RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/19/1045/OUT, planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 legal agreement first being entered into and subject to the proposed conditions, as amended by table b, and

 

(B)   Officers report back to the Committee in 12 months’ time in relation to the subsequent monitoring of the development unless there was a constitutional reason why this was not possible.