To receive any announcements from the Chairman and any matters of communication.

The Chairman advised the meeting that the order of business for the planning applications would be Items 12/13, 8, 7, 10, 6, 11 and 9.

The Chairman reminded Members of the Committee that they had to be present throughout the entire debate on an Item (including the officer’s introduction) in order that they could participate and vote upon it.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 11 October 2017 (copy to follow).

RESOLVED

that the minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 11 October 2017 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To receive from Members any declarations of interest including membership of any Parish/Town Council consulted upon during the planning application process and the way in which a Member cast his/her vote.

To consider the report of the Director of Regeneration and Business which provides a monthly update of planning enforcement cases where action has been taken.

The Chairman advised Members to raise any issues they might have with regard to planning enforcement cases with the Planning Enforcement and Appeals Team Leader.

Address:       St Nicholas Church, Church Road, Barton-le-Clay, Bedford, MK45 4LA

Dismantle and rebuild the garden wall adjacent to the church hall.

Applicant:     St Nicolas Church

The Chairman referred Members to the Late Sheet which contained recommendations that consideration of Planning Application No. CB/17/04232/FULL for the dismantling and rebuilding of the garden wall adjacent to the church hall at St Nicholas Church, Church Road, Barton-le-Clay, Bedford, MK45 4LA and Planning Application No. CB/17/01775/LB for Listed Building consent to carry out the works outlined above be deferred.

The Chairman felt that it would be unwise to proceed given that the Conservation Officer required further time to consider additional objections which had been received and discuss related issues with Historic England.

On being put to the vote it was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application Nos. CB/17/04232/FULL and CB/17/01775/LB relating to St Nicholas Church, Church Road, Barton-le-Clay, Bedford, MK45 4LA be deferred to allow re-consultation and engagement with Historic England as part of the exploration of alternative options for wall repair which sought to address local concerns.

Address:       Land west of Jacques Lane, Clophill, Bedford, MK45 4BS

Outline: Erection of 8 dwellings and formation of vehicular and pedestrian access with associated landscaping.

Applicant:     Anthony Catlin Will Trust

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/03228/OUT an outline application for the erection of 8 dwellings and the formulation of vehicular and pedestrian access with associated landscaping on land west of Jacques Lane, Clophill, Bedford, MK45 4BS.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses, additional comments and additional condition/reasons.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Clophill Parish Council, an objector to the application and the agent for the applicant under the public participation scheme.

A Member sought clarification from the Parish Council representative on the feelings of the village towards the application given the large number of objections received.  In reply the Parish Councillor stated that local residents did not want to see the rural character of Jacques Lane and the area in general eroded.  In response to further queries by Members she stated that there was no public access to the land and that, as far as she was aware, the land was owned and maintained by Central Bedfordshire Council.

A ward Member commented that Jacques Lane was more of a track than a lane.  It lay outside the settlement envelope and the proposed dwellings, coupled with the three large properties currently being built, would result in a 50% increase in the Lane’s population.  It would have a detrimental impact on the rural identity of the village with no economic benefit.  He then referred to the public utility issues in the area and, in particular, the power cuts and flooding which had taken place.  With regard to the proposed installation of passing places he stated that the top of the Lane allowed two way traffic and they were not required there.  The Lane became, in effect, a single track as it moved towards the application site.  Further, the proposed location of the passing places was on land licensed to local residents for use as gardens.  Whilst the agreements could be revoked it would generate a great deal of local ill will.

The ward Member reminded the meeting that 50 properties had already been approved as part of the Lakes development and a further 50 plus homes were under appeal.  He stated that Clophill had accepted its share of development within Central Bedfordshire and asked that the application be rejected.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         The planning officer’s acknowledgement that the proposed development was outside the settlement envelope.  However, he stated that the benefits brought by the scheme outweighed this issue as they did with reference to the urbanisation of the site.  Further the impact of urbanisation could be mitigated.

·         On the matter of sustainability the planning officer commented that Clophill was a large village with a community centre, schools, a store post office and public houses.  It was also close to an existing bus stop.  On this basis the scheme was considered to be sustainable.

·         The planning officer’s statement that  the application site lay outside  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Address:       Land adjacent to St Marys (Stotfold) Lower School, Rook Tree Lane, Stotfold, Hitchin SG5 4DJ

Reserved Matters: Appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for 15 dwellings, Application No. CB/16/01148/OUT dated 08/09/2016

Applicant:     Staske (London) Ltd

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/02417/RM, a Reserved Matters application for the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for 15 dwellings  (Application No. CB/16/01148/OUT dated 8 September 2016) on land adjacent to St Mary’s (Stotfold) Lower School, Rook Tree Lane, Stotfold. Hitchin, SG5 4DJ.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional comments and amended conditions as set out in the Late Sheet.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Stotfold Town Council, an objector to the application and the applicant under the public participation scheme.

A Member sought clarification from the objector with regard to the low number of objections which had been received.  In response the objector explained that many mothers, concerned at the detrimental impact by the application on the safety of children walking to St Mary’s Lower School, had written in to object at the outline application stage.  However, some had decided not to actively continue their objections once outline approval had been given.  The Member thanked the objector for attending and advised that it was helpful if objectors could repeat their specific objections at the Reserved Matters stage.

A ward Member was of the opinion that insufficient consideration had been given to the safety aspect of the application and made the following suggestions:

·         The provision of a full pedestrian crossing to the north west side of Brayes Manor.

·         The provision of a full width footpath along the whole length of the site

·         The movement of the bus stop box, from the bus stop which required relocation as a result of the application, to an existing bus stop on the south east side near to the Chequers Public House.  The box would prevent car parking at the bus stop and end the current need  for pedestrians to walk between parked cars and for buses to drop off and pick up in the middle of the road.  It would also allow the provision of parking spaces at the application site to replace those lost.

·         The bus stop referred to as requiring relocation could, subject to consultation with Stotfold Town Council, be removed completely because of the proximity of two other bus stops in the vicinity.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         The planning officer’s comment that most of the issues raised had been considered at the outline application stage.  She stated that although a pedestrian crossing had not been considered at the outline stage  there was a condition requiring the retention of a crossing point.  To a degree, therefore, this issue had been captured and would be a matter of compliance.  Likewise the provision of a footpath had been captured as a part of a condition and would also be a matter of compliance.

·         The planning officer’s comment that, at outline stage, the bus stop had been considered in terms of relocation and she was unable to comment on it being completely removed.

·         The highways  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Address:       Land adjacent to 17, The Green, Beeston (nearest postcode SG19 1PE)

Outline Application: Erection of six affordable dwellings including access and parking.

Applicant:     CBC

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/01600/OUT, an outline application for the erection of six affordable dwellings including access and parking on land adjacent to 17 The Green, Beeston.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee noted that there was no additional information set out in the Late Sheet which related to this application.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Sandy Town Council, an objector to the application and the agent for the applicant under the public participation scheme.

A ward Member expressed her support for the application.  She stated that she was a Beeston resident and lived close to the development site.  She then referred to initial concerns expressed by local residents regarding the layout of the proposed homes but stated the indicative layout provided in the outline application appeared more acceptable.  The ward Member also commented on the need for affordable homes in Beeston and that, as a rural exception site, a maximum of ten homes was permitted though the application before Members was for only six.

A second ward Member referred to the proximity of the A1, the bus service and the nearby bridge over the A1 which allowed pedestrians to walk to Sandy and its schools if they wished.   In addition the village was on the Greensand Ridge Walk and it was possible to access the nearby countryside.  She stressed that whilst the village appeared isolated it was not.  The ward Member then referred to the possibility that residents could use the parking spaces to be allocated for the proposed community orchard and asked that recommended condition 3 be strengthened to prevent this.  The ward Member also asked whether, as the dwellings were affordable homes, allocation priority would be given to local people.  Last, if the application was approved, she asked when the Town Council could begin preparation for the provision of its replacement allotments on the site.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         The planning officer’s explanation that the proposed houses faced The Green so that they complied with the character of the area and placing them at a different angle would be detrimental to the street scene.  However, the layout shown was indicative and would be dealt with further at the Reserved Matters stage.

·         The absence of direct access so there was the possibility of parking on The Green.  The planning officer stated that parking provision was made within the application site and it was not possible to stop parking on the roads.  Any access from The Green would be a civil matter and dealt with through legal measures.

·         The Council could grant permission for the access.  However, the applicant would need to obtain the appropriate legal rights to access The Green which was outside the remit of the Committee.

·         The Chairman referred to the absence of a footpath on The Green so pedestrians were required to walk on the highway.  The planning officer stated that the highway  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Address:       Land to the east of High Road, Shillington, SG5 3LL

Demolition of existing village hall; construction of 26 no. residential units, together with adequate off-road parking, private amenity garden space and landscaping; and erection of double garage for No. 37 High Road.

Applicant:     Shillington Village Hall

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/02941/FULL for the demolition of the existing village hall; construction of 26 no. residential units, together with adequate off-road parking, private amenity garden space and landscaping; and erection of double garage for no. 37 High Road at land to the east of High Road, Shillington, SG5 3LL.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses, additional comments and additional/amended conditions as set out in the Late Sheet.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Shillington Parish Council and from the applicant’s agent under the public participation scheme.

The ward Member stated that the application marked the first step in the provision of a new community and sports centre for the village which would be a lasting and important amenity.  She also praised the applicant, Rowan Homes, and thanked them for their approach.

The Chairman advised that the application had only been brought before the Committee because it was contrary to Policy DM4 (most of the application site lying outside the settlement envelope).

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         The planning officer’s comment that although the application site was outside the settlement envelope the impact on the countryside, which was not considered to be harmful, was outweighed by the benefits arising from the development.

·         A response by the planning officer to the objections raised by the landscape officer including the former’s statement that the existing hedgerow planting on the boundaries on the eastern and southern sides of the site would be retained by condition.

·         A Member’s concern that the new bungalows would be bought by developers and converted into 2-3 bedroom homes.  He queried whether any action had been taken to prevent this from occurring.  In response the planning officer referred Members to recommended condition 22 which prevented extensions or alterations to the roofs of the bungalow units and the dwelling at Plot 19 without specific planning permission.

On being put to the vote 11 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/02941/FULL relating to land to the east of High Road, Shillington, SG5 3LL be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.

Address:       Land at Chase Farm, east of High Street and land to the east of the A507, Arlesey (nearest postcode SG15 6XS)

Erection of new pedestrian and cycle bridge over the A507.

Applicant:     Telereal Ventures Ltd

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/02681/FULL for the erection of a new pedestrian and cycle bridge over the A507 on land at Chase Farm, east of High Street and on land to the east of the A507, Arlesey.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses and additional comments set out in the Late Sheet.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Arlesey Town Council and the applicant’s agent under the public participation scheme.  A Member sought clarification from the applicant’s agent as to whether the bridge would be lit overnight.  He referred to an existing cycle bridge across the bypass and how the lighting, which was on all night, did not appear to be necessary and was, therefore, entirely wasteful.  Another Member asked if the applicant’s agent was aware of the bridge crossing the A507 at Ridgmont.  In response the agent stated that he was familiar with the bridge to a limited degree.  The Member expressed disappointment as she felt the bridge was both a model example of a crossing for pedestrians and cyclists and aesthetically pleasing.

(Note: at this point in the proceedings Councillor Young declared an interest in the application because of his extensive involvement in the preparation of the Arlesey Master Plan and because he knew the applicant’s agent).

A Member, in response to what had been said by the applicant’s agent in his representation, referred to the Late Sheet and the concerns expressed by the landscaping officer regarding aspects of the proposed bridge and the officer’s suggestion that the opportunity be taken to secure a bespoke design.  The Member sought clarification on why this differed from what had been stated by the applicant’s agent in his representation.  The Member then raised the issue of the bridge not being designed for use by horse riders.  He stated that, whilst there were no bridleways immediately to the western side of the bridge, it was proposed to enhance their provision under the developing Arlesey Green Wheel proposals.  The bridge would therefore become an important bridleway access.  In response the applicant’s agent stated that his comments were based on the content of the planning officer’s report and he had not seen the Late Sheet.

The above Member, now speaking as a ward Member, thanked the Executive Member for Regeneration for his intervention which had resulted in the provision of a bridge at this site.  However, he felt that the applicant had failed to deliver a satisfactory design which would look attractive within the landscape, especially when examples of more aesthetically pleasing crossings could be seen elsewhere on the A507 in Central Bedfordshire.  He concurred with the concerns expressed by the Town Council representative regarding the quality of the bridge design.  The ward Member felt that insufficient thought had been given to the community’s aspirations for the bridge and that as Arlesey was expanding, and would possibly continue to do, he would wish  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Address:       Puddlehill (Former All Saints Vicarage), Bedford Road, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, LU5 5DJ

Refurbishment and extension of existing detached property (the former Vicarage) to provide accommodation in the form of 5 nos. individual bedrooms in the original house and 8 nos. studios in the new extension, including ancillary spaces such as office, laundry, shower rooms, communal areas and parking in order to provide supported accommodation and service hub for the vulnerable members of our communities.

Applicant:     CBC Housing Directorate

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application CB/17/02942/REG3 for the refurbishment and extension of an existing detached property (the former Vicarage) to provide accommodation in the form of 5 nos. individual bedrooms in the original house and 8 nos. studios in the new extension, including ancillary spaces such as office, laundry, shower rooms, communal areas and parking in order to provide supported accommodation and a service hub for vulnerable members of the community at Puddlehill (formerly All Saints Vicarage), Bedford Road, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, LU5 5DJ.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses, additional/amended conditions/reasons and additional informatives.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from the applicant under the public participation scheme.

A ward Member advised that local residents had asked him to speak on their behalf.  He stated that he did not believe the objections from residents next to the former Vicarage had been given due consideration and commented that they were having another Central Bedfordshire Council home for homeless people placed close to their homes mindful that Bedford Court (Central Bedfordshire Council’s temporary accommodation scheme) was also located nearby.  He commented that Houghton Regis appeared to have more homeless person accommodation than any other town in Central Bedfordshire before stating that local residents had asked that, if the development was to proceed then a less dangerous and intrusive entrance should be found or the proposed entrance redesigned.  They had suggested that the entrance be placed nearer to, or in, Bedford Court.  The ward Member also referred to the reference by Houghton Regis Town Council to road safety issues relating to entering and leaving the site.  He stated that the entrance to the former Vicarage was meant for occasional vehicle use and not for access and parking for up to 19 vehicles.  He added that Bedford Road was a busy road with poor visibility on a semi-blind bend.  In addition the layby near the site was often used by heavy goods vehicles parked on a long term basis which blocked the view north to the entrance, there was a nearby footpath linking two primary schools and the traffic levels were due to increase as a result of two major developments which would feed onto Bedford Road.  He therefore asked that the entrance to the site be relocated to a safer location possibly in or nearer to Bedford Court.

A second ward Member commented that as the Council was landowner, applicant and planning authority it was important that there was maximum transparency and a commitment to meaningful engagement with local residents.  She believed the Council had set an example of good practice with the application.   The engagement with local residents at the pre-application stage was welcomed on the basis that it was better to have difficult conversations at the beginning of the process then later.  The Member praised the design and access statement and then requested that consideration to be given to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

To receive and note, prior to considering the planning applications contained in the schedules above, any additional information detailed in the Late Sheet to be circulated on 7 November 2017.

In advance of consideration of the planning applications attached to the agenda the Committee received a Late Sheet advising it of additional consultation/publicity responses, comments and proposed additional/amended conditions.  A copy of the Late Sheet is attached as an appendix to these minutes.

Under the provisions of the Members Planning Code of Good Practice, Members are requested to note that the next Development Management Committee will be held on 6 December 2017 and the Site Inspections will be undertaken on 4 December 2017.

NOTED

that the next meeting of the Development Management Committee will be held on 6 December 2017.

RESOLVED

that all Members and substitute Members along with the relevant ward representatives be invited to conduct site inspections on 4 December 2017.