Agenda item

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/22/1030/OUT, planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions set out at the end of the report.

The Principal Planning Officer referred to the planning history of adjacent sites and presented a detailed series of plans and visuals in respect of the application site for two parcels of land to the north side of Buntingford. He highlighted a relatively new road, Neale Drive, which intersects the two parcels of land.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the application was on a site that had been identified in the District Plan for housing development and some parts of the site had already come forward and been built out for development.

The Principal Planning Officer referred to the master planning process and referred to the design principles which included the promotion of active travel and walking and cycling links from the site down towards the town centre.

The Principal Planning Officer presented a series of illustrative plans for how the site could be built out to meet the principles in the masterplan. He referred to the comments from the Conservation and Design Officers in respect of frontages onto Neale Drive and pedestrian links.

The Principal Planning Officer summarised the addendum report which contained four additional letters. He said that Neale Drive had not been opened fully and was not adopted due to ongoing discussions between Redrow Homes and Hertfordshire County Council. Members were advised that once these discussions had concluded a few more minor measures were required at the junction between Neale Drive and Ermine Street before Neale Drive could be adopted and opened to the public.

Members were advised that planning conditions had been applied which meant that the developer could not commence the development until Neale Drive was open and ready for use.

Mr Rob Snowling addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Jones addressed the Committee as the local ward Member.

Members were advised that Officers could not identify any planning reasons for deferring the application and Officers had recommended it for approval as it accorded with planning policies. The Principal Planning Officer said that Neale Drive was essential for accessing this development and Officers were satisfied that the proposed planning conditions would ensure that Neale Drive would allow the development to be accessed. He referred to a condition for a construction management plan which required details of the construction traffic routings.

The Service Manager (Development Management) said that Officers had been in contact with the highways authority who had provided assurances that the Section 278 works would be undertaken in the summer of 2023. Members were reminded that this was an outline application and Officers were satisfied that by the time development could commence, the works to Neale Drive will have been underway or completed.

Members were advised that Officers could apply a further compliance condition that would stipulate that the development cannot commence until Neale Drive was fully operational and open to construction traffic.

Councillor Kemp asked for some clarity as to what was being proposed. He said that from his visit to the site, he considered that Neale Drive was complete throughout and the junction onto the A10 was complete in situ. He could not see any physical reason why Neale Drive should not be available for construction traffic immediately.

Councillor Kemp asked for some clarification in respect of the construction management plan and he did not consider it to be acceptable at all for construction traffic to come down Ermine Street to access Neale Drive. He said that there should be a firm condition or a very firm understanding that construction traffic should access this site from the junction of the A10 and Neale Drive.

The Principal Planning Officer said that the applicant would need highway authority approval to use the access and Officers would not expect the construction management plan to route construction traffic past people’s houses.

The Service Manager (Development Management) said that the Officers could refer to all traffic being via Neale Drive and the junction with the A10. Councillor Andrews said that his concern was that Neale Drive was only used by construction traffic until it was complete.

Councillor Beckett said that the highways agency had stated that the visibility splays were substandard entering the site and a stage one road safety audit was required. The Service Manager (Development Management) confirmed that the stage one road safety audit had been completed.

Councillor Newton said that the fundamental problems referred to by Councillor Jones had not been resolved in respect of this application. Councillor Deering reminded Members that this was an outline application.

The Service Manager (Development Management) said that more detail could be added to the requirements of the construction management plan in respect of the routing of construction vehicles and access off the A10 onto Neale Drive. She said that there was the opportunity to add a compliance condition stipulating that no works could take place on site until that access was ready.

Councillor Beckett said that the housing department were concerned in respect of the lack of four-bedroom affordable housing and that at least one bungalow was substandard in terms of size. He commented on the daily water consumption per person per day and asked for some guidance in respect of the proposed distribution of the affordable housing.

Councillor Fernando said that Thames Water had advised that in respect of surface water drainage, surface water would not be discharged to the public network and they had not objected on that basis. He said that some attenuation had been recommended on the site as it was located on low lying bed rock.

The Principal Planning Officer said that this outline application did include an illustrative mix of housing and there was the opportunity to improve on that mix at the reserved matters stage and conditions had been applied in that respect.

The Service Manager (Development Management) said that on a 58 dwelling scheme a registered provider would prefer to have blocks in respect of management and maintenance and Officers felt that it was appropriate to allow for some flexibility as this was a quite a small site. She said that the important point was the quality of the build being of a high standard.

The Principal Planning Officer said that the main concern of the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) was that there was a below ground attenuation proposed and they felt that this was not ideal as there was no benefit in terms of biodiversity. He said that above ground attenuation was provided which had resulted in the access being moved slightly. Members were advised that a condition had been applied on the recommendation of Thames Water.

The Principal Planning Officer said that the strategy does involve discharging into the main sewer network and Thames Water would be reconsulted at the reserved matters stage regarding the discharge of conditions in respect of drainage.

The Service Manager (Development Management) said that Thames Water had not objected to the proposals and if there was to be a significant change to drainage management on site there was an approval process and Officers would need to reconsult Thames Water. She referred to condition 15 which required details to be submitted.

Councillor Crystal sought and was given clarity in respect of the significant tree planting referred to in the masterplan. He referred to the comments of Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust on the insertion of 5 biodiversity units in the conditions. He referred to condition 16 in respect of bat cavity boxes and swift boxes and asked if the biodiversity units could be added to that condition.

The Principal Planning Officer said that it was worth bearing in mind that areas of open space in front of the houses that had already been built were outside of the site. He said that there were significant areas of tree planting on the eastern and western boundaries of site and along the frontage of Neale Drive.

Members were advised that the landscape and environmental management plan could be amended to include the 5 biodiversity units as requested by the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust.

Councillor Kemp said that the request for a Section 106 contribution of £74,000 by the NHS had not been included in the heads of terms. The Legal Services Manager confirmed that the decision making of the Committee could pick up this matter.

In reply to a comment from Councillor Newton in respect of private legal action in respect of the road and their house, Councillor Deering said that Members had to determine the application in front of them. The Legal Services Manager confirmed that the Committee could not get involved in third party private legal action.

Councillor Redfern referred to the area being an area of archaeological significance and there being no reference to this in the report. The Principal Planning Officer said that the archaeological team had not commented on the application. He said that the standard archaeological condition could be applied to the application.

Councillor Ruffles proposed and Councillor Kemp seconded, a motion that application 3/22/1030/OUT be granted planning permission subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions set out at the end of the report, subject to the following amendments:

·               a construction management plan condition be applied to specify that construction traffic onto Neale Drive shall be accessed off the A10;

·               a compliance condition be applied that prohibits development from commencing until Neale Drive was open to construction traffic;

·               an archaeological condition be applied;

·               the £74,000 requested by the NHS be included in the heads of terms of the Section 106 legal agreement;

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

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/22/1030/OUT, planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions set out at the end of the report, subject to the following amendments:

·               a construction management plan condition be applied to specify that construction traffic onto Neale Drive shall be accessed off the A10;

·               a compliance condition be applied that prohibits development from commencing until Neale Drive was open to construction traffic;

·               an archaeological condition be applied;

·               the £74,000 requested by the NHS be included in the heads of terms of the Section 106 legal agreement.