Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Mr David Roberts addressed the Committee in opposition to the applications.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of applications 3/11/2209/FP and 3/11/2210/LB, planning permission and listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Director advised that the Council’s Solicitor had commented that reference to intermediate affordable housing on page 13 of the report now submitted should have instead made reference to shared ownership.

The Director commented that the Solicitor had stated that there was insufficient information relating to the transfer of land between the developer and the Parish Council and further information in respect of this matter, including how the land will be used and maintenance contributions, should be submitted in order for the Section 106 agreement to be properly drafted.

The Director confirmed that a fallback position would need to be identified in any legal agreement should the Parish Council decide not to take ownership of the land.

The Council’s Solicitor had also commented that further information relating to the maintenance costs associated with the balancing pond, future landscaped areas and private access road should be submitted in order for the Section 106 to be properly drafted.  The Director confirmed that the Parish Council had indicated a willingness to fund the maintenance of the balancing pond.

Councillor Mrs R Cheswright expressed her concerns that another modern development of large houses with small rooms and gardens was being imposed on the old English village of Braughing.

Councillor Cheswright referred to a locally acknowledged need for smaller 2 to 3 bedroom properties and commented that the majority of houses in this proposed development were of 4 or more bedrooms.

Councillor Cheswright spoke against the numerous minor amendments that had been made to a number of applications, gradually increasing the size of the houses.  She stated that the applicant should apply for the full proposed size of dwelling from the outset.

Councillor Cheswright stressed that any planning conditions must be realistic and enforceable.  She also stated that off street parking by contractors’ vehicles often meant that it was very difficult for pedestrians and vehicles to negotiate the B1368. 

Councillor Cheswright was particularly concerned in respect of heavy goods vehicles using the narrow roads in the village, which were in close proximity to a number of listed buildings and where weight restrictions of 4.5 tons were in force.

Councillor Cheswright was also concerned in respect of the proposed siting and maintenance of the balancing pond, particularly as the Parish Council had requested that the pond’s location be reviewed to allow for more burial plots in the churchyard.

Councillor Cheswright was further concerned regarding the potential loss of hedgerows and sycamore trees on the site.  She stated that the homes must be built to lifetime home standards and must have wheelchair access.

Councillor Cheswright concluded that the Parish Council were concerned regarding the choice of planting being of a suburban nature rather than rural.  She emphasised that the Section 106 legal agreement must be completely watertight in terms of the details referred to by the Director.

The Director advised Members that this site was an allocated site within the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.  The Director confirmed it was the understanding of Officers that the balancing pond and the associated land would be transferred into the ownership of Braughing Parish Council.

In relation to wheelchair access, the Director advised that due to the topography of the site, whilst the frontage of a limited number of properties had stepped access, they complied with the appropriate building regulation requirements in that the rear of the properties benefited from level access.

The Director also advised that, whilst there would be no vehicular access between the north and south parts of the site, foot and cycle access was possible.  The Landscape Officer had not felt strongly enough about the loss of the sycamore trees to resist the application on that basis.

The Director commented that, provided that traffic access was maintained on all roads close to the site, then the Council had very limited powers to act in respect of construction traffic and congestion.

In respect of construction traffic, there would be an element of disruption and Officers had attached a condition requiring that details of all construction vehicles be submitted to and agreed by Officers prior to the commencement of the development.

Councillor M Newman referred to policy OSV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.  He stated that for category 1 villages such as Braughing, the policy stated that only limited small scale development was acceptable.  The Policy also referred to the size of the village and given that Braughing was a small village, the numbers in a development should be towards the lower end of the scale, i.e. 15 dwellings or less.

Councillor Newman cast doubt on whether it was appropriate for this development to be approved, particularly when considering previous developments in Braughing.  He queried whether the community infrastructure was in place to support a total of 60 houses from this development and previous developments in the village.

The Director advised that, in addition to allocated sites, there would inevitably be other developments coming forward that were not located on those sites.  In formulating the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007, the Council had assumed a development rate of 100 dwellings per annum in this way.

Members were advised that the Authority should continue to have identified a 5 year supply of housing, as per the now superseded  PPS3.  The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had applied further pressure by stating that a further 5% of land should be available in addition to the 5 year supply.  The Director stated that that Authority had identified a 4.5 year supply in its most recent Annual Monitoring Report.

The Director reported that Braughing was a category 1 village so was a village on the larger end of the scale with a certain level of supporting infrastructure.  Members were reminded that the legal agreement sought to secure the infrastructure required to support this development.

Councillor M Alexander raised a number of concerns relating to information that was outstanding, such as details regarding design and environmental quality, landscaping, planning out crime, wildlife habitats, particularly grass snakes, as well as the issue of the balancing pond.

Councillor P Moore commented that there were a number of unknown aspects in respect of this application and she was particularly concerned in respect of the limited facilities for the disabled.  Councillor Moore was also concerned regarding the impact of the application if the Construction Method Statement was not adhered to.

Councillor A Burlton stated that the proposed above ground SUDs solution, as well as rainwater re-use systems, should be made mandatory for inclusion into the designs for this site, as this would greatly reduce the flood risk potential.

Councillor M Alexander proposed and Councillor Mrs R Cheswright seconded, a motion that applications 3/11/2209/FP and 3/11/2210/LB be deferred to enable Officers to seek further information in relation to a range of issues raised by the development proposals.

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

The Committee rejected the recommendations of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that, subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, applications 3/11/2209/FP and 3/11/2210/LB be granted subject to the conditions now detailed, and agreed to defer the applications.

RESOLVED – that, in respect of applications 3/12/2209/FP and 3/11/2210/LB, these matters be deferred to enable Officers to seek further information in relation to a range of issues raised by the development proposals.