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 as follows:

Morning: Items 6, 11, 7, 9, 10, 13.

Afternoon: Items 12, 8, 14.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 28 March 2018 and 25 April 2018 (copies to follow).

RESOLVED

that the minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on held on 28 March 2018 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(Note: The minutes of the meeting held on 25 April 2018 had not yet been published).

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 the planning enforcement cases with the Planning Enforcement Appeals Team Leader.

Address:       Land at Chase Farm, east of High Street, Arlesey (nearest post code SG15 6YA)

Outline Application: Development of up to 950 No. dwellings and 80 bedroom extra care unit, a two form entry lower school, up to 7,000 sq. metres of employment floor space, up to 6,500 sq. metres of retail (A1-A5), a hotel. Healthcare inc. provision of new doctors surgery and dentists and leisure/community use of which up to 500 sq. metres to comprise of community use floor space, provision of new cycling & walking routes, open space including sports pitches, associated changing parking and other ancillary facilities and formal play areas together with associated works and operations including engineering operations & earthworks.

Applicant:     Telereal Ventures Ltd

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/01158/OUT, an outline application for the development of up to 950 No. dwellings and an 80 bedroom extra care unit, a three form entry lower school, up to 7,000 sq. metres of employment floor space, up to 6,500 sq. metres of retail (A1-A5), a hotel, healthcare including the provision of a new doctors surgery and dentists and leisure/community use of which up to 500 sq. metres to comprise of community use floor space, provision of new cycling and walking routes, open space including sports pitches, associated changing parking and other ancillary facilities and formal play areas together with associated works and operations including engineering operations & earthworks on land at Chase Farm, east of High Street, Arlsey.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to an error on the site location plan attached to the agenda, additional comments and additional representations as set out in the Late Sheet.

In advance of consideration of the application the Chairman advised the Committee that the Arlesey Town Council representative who had registered to speak was unable to attend.  The Committee then received representations from an objector to the application and the agent for the applicant under the public participation scheme.

A ward Member expressed his thanks to the planning officer for her efforts in attempting to make the application comply with the Masterplan for Arlesey Cross.  He reminded the meeting that the Masterplan had been drawn up some years ago following much effort and extensive consultation with stakeholders, the wider community, the Town Council and residents and had been submitted to the Executive before being adopted.  The ward Member commented, however, that the application did not comply with the Masterplan and he referred to some of what he claimed were the key issues including a significant reduction in the amount of employment land and that the jobs to be created would be mainly service and quite low grade jobs.  He felt that this would only contribute towards Arlesey becoming a dormitory town; something which had been resisted by the ward Members, local residents and the Town Council during the discussions on the Masterplan.  The ward Member next commented that if the application before Members was approved currently only half the relief road was in place and there was no indication that the western side would be completed in line with the eastern side.  He stated that this would place unacceptable traffic pressure on Arlesey High Street, something the western relief road was supposed to reduce.  The ward Member referred to a recent major news story regarding congestion outside the lower school in Arlesey involving heavy lorries and other vehicles mounting the pavement and threatening parents and children.  He felt it unacceptable that the road and development should proceed with the western side of the relief road not yet available.  The ward Member next stated that there was a huge reduction, against policy, in the level of social housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Address:       Land off The Sidings, Henlow (nearest postcode SG16 6HB)

Outline planning application: Construction of 3 detached dwellings and all associated works with new private drive off The Sidings (all matters reserved except access and layout)

Applicant:     C/O Agent

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/05355/OUT an Outline planning application for the construction of 3 detached dwellings and all associated works with new private drive off The Sidings (all matters reserved except access and layout) on land off The Sidings, Henlow.

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

In advance of consideration of the application the Chairman reminded the ward Member, who was also a Member of the Committee that he had called-in the application on the grounds that it would result in a loss of amenity, overbearing impact on neighbouring properties and that the design was out of keeping with neighbouring properties.  The Chairman asked the ward Member if he was therefore predisposed to refuse the application.  In response the ward Member explained that he had met with a number of local residents who had submitted objections.  The issues which they had raised formed the reasons for the call-in; the residents having asked him to raise those issues with the Committee and the planning officers.  He added that the views expressed by the residents were not necessarily his own views and he had retained an open mind.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Henlow Parish Council and an objector to the application under the public participation scheme.

In response to comments by the Parish Council representative the Chairman assured him that 12 Members of the Committee had attended a site inspection of the application site on the Monday prior to the meeting.

A second ward Member explained that he had been unable to attend the site inspection because he was engaged on other Council business.  He had submitted his apologies to both the Chairman and the Executive Member for Regeneration.   The Chairman stated that he had explained the reason for the ward Member’s absence.

The second ward Member then drew the Committee’s attention to the reference in the officer report to the development being within the Settlement Envelope of Lower Stondon when it actually lay in Henlow Parish and in the settlement of Henlow Camp.  The ward Member then referred to a Member’s comment relating to the previous application (land at Chase Farm, Arlesey) where there had been 12 objections from residents for a development of 900 dwellings.  He stated that with the current application there was very significant concern expressed by local residents and there were 24 objections received for just 3 dwellings.  He added that 20 or more residents had attended the Parish Council meeting when the application was considered.  The ward Member felt that the level of attendance clearly illustrated that much disquiet had been generated by the proposed development although he commented that residents’ objections were, unfortunately, a minor consideration when dealing with planning applications.

The second ward Member turned to what he described as the two main issues.  The first was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Address:       Land between 8A and 28 and rear of 28 to 38, New Road, Clifton (nearest postcode SG17 5JH)

Erection of up to 25 dwellings with allocated parking and associated works.

Applicant:     High Street Homes

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/04833/FULL for the erection of up to 25 dwellings with allocated parking and associated works on land between 8A and 28 and the rear of 28 to 38 New Road, Clifton.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional/amended conditions (in the form of an informative) as set out in the Late Sheet.

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

A Member referred the agent to the presence of an existing large bungalow at No. 39A Harbrook Lane at the north-eastern corner of the proposed development site.  He stated that one of the occupants’ concerns was that delivery vehicles to the new dwellings would, given the highway constraints including the presence of bollards, use the bungalow’s driveway to turn round on.  He asked the agent if there was anything which could be done to rectify this issue as a part of the permission, if only as an informative.  In response the agent stated that the Committee had previously considered the matter as part of the original application for 73 dwellings (on a site to the east of the current application site) and the solution approved included the installation of two bollards.

A ward Member stated that he had intended to raise the Parish Council’s objection on the proposed removal of a hedge but the matter had been answered by the planning officer who had reported that the hedgerows would be retained.  A second ward Member stated he was happy with the application.

A Member referred to the issues raised at the site inspection with regard to No. 39A and he asked the planning officer if, given the linked circumstances, there was any action that could be taken, for example the installation of a bollard further down Harbrook Lane and a dropped kerb. 

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         He and the highways officer had examined the area and there was warning signage on the main road but it was difficult to see.  He also felt that that the problem was a satellite-navigation issue rather than something for the Council to deal with.  The Vice-Chairman concurred and pointed out that satellite-navigation still showed access as possible.  He asked if the bungalow’s residents had been consulted on whether they wanted further action to be taken.  The Chairman stated that nothing could be done as part of the current application and it would need to be taken up separately.

·         A ward Member stated that the additional signage had only been installed two months previously in response to the residents’ concerns and to the visits by delivery drivers using Harbrook Lane attempting to deliver to the new homes that had already been constructed nearby.  He stated that he was examining the possibility of additional signage with the residents.  The ward Member added that the easiest solution would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Address:       Unit 5, The Ridgeway Business Park, The Ridgeway, Moggerhanger, Bedford, MK44 3PH

Extension to existing workshop building and construction of extension to existing parking area.

Applicant:     Pip Bayleys Limited

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/05311/FULL for the extension to an existing workshop building and construction of an extension to the existing parking area at Unit 5, The Ridgeway Business Park, The Ridgeway, Moggerhanger, Bedford, MK44 3PH.

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 a representation from the applicant under the public participation scheme.

A Member sought clarification from the applicant with regard to whether planting would be undertaken directly by the new fencing around the extended car park.  The Member referred to the planting by the existing fencing and how it had softened its appearance so effectively that it was impossible to see the fencing.  In response the applicant stated that the intention was to bund the area and construct the fence inside the bund.  He was uncertain as the planting required but he was willing to undertake high quality planting so it would not be possible to see the fence.

Another Member queried if the parking area would be for cars or Heavy Goods Vehicles.  In response the applicant stated that current facility was an unauthorised car park but the intension was to create a parking for both cars and HGVs.  The Member then asked if the fencing to be installed would be similar to that already in place for the existing parking area.  In response the applicant stated that it would not be dissimilar but would be a modern, more appropriate green fencing.

The ward Member indicated his full support for the application although he pointed out that Northill Parish Council was against it because of the traffic passing through Moggerhanger.  He acknowledged that the level of traffic was a problem given the small size of the village.  However, given the vehicle numbers submitted by the applicant it appeared that only three additional vehicles would pass through Moggerhanger as the majority of vehicles would turn left on to the A1.  Whilst there would be a slight increase onto an already busy road he believed the increase was acceptable as did the highways officer.  Following a query by the Chairman the ward Member explained that a small percentage of vehicles turned right onto the Ridgeway.

(Note: At this point in the proceedings Councillor Firth left the Council Chamber and took no further part in the debate or in the vote on this item).

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

·         A Member commented that the Council had policies within its development framework that permitted the expansion of existing industrial areas whether or not those areas were allocated.  He stated that the application was, therefore, fully policy compliant.

·         Another Member stated he had some concerns which he had expressed on the site inspection.  He first referred to the aesthetically unappealing utilitarian industrial fence used on the main compound  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Address:       Manor Farm, High Street, Eyeworth, Sandy, SG19 2HJ

Conversion of existing farm yard barns to create 4 dwellings, with associated landscaping.

Applicant:     Mr M Lee & Mr Roger Lee

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/05567/FULL for the conversion of existing farm yard barns to create four dwellings with associated landscaping at Manor Farm, High Street, Eyeworth, Sandy, SG19 2HJ.

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 an objector to the application and the applicant’s agent under the public participation scheme.

A Member sought clarification from the objector on how many of the 35 local homes he represented in addition to his own.  In response the objector stated that he represented 6 and that others who supported the application had a vested interest in it through being landowners, relatives or friends.  He stated that the view from within the community was that 6 was quite a large number.  The Chairman referred to comments he had made earlier in the meeting with regard to the relative lack of importance that could be attached to the simple number of those either for or against an application.  The Member responded that he had sought a context given the objector’s claim that the rest of the community felt the development to be unsuitable.

Another Member referred to the objector’s comments regarding the absence of local services and sought clarification from the objector on how the existing residents managed.  Following an earlier claim by the objector that his property would be overlooked by a cathedral style window in Plot 3 the Member also asked for clarification on what windows on the adjacent wall of 2 Sutton Road faced Plot 3.  In response the objector first stated that Eyeworth had become a small commuter hamlet.  He then advised that a letter had been sent by the Council in April 2017 to the developers stating that the latter should seek to use the site for industrial purposes.  The objector stated that no effort had been made to do so.  With regard to overlooking the objector stated that his bathroom and kitchen would be affected.  From his kitchen he would also be able to see the bedrooms in the stable conversion which was on his boundary wall.  He stated that he was not willing to give permission for builders to carry out any related work from within his land.  The objector added that his living room and kitchen area at the back of his property would also be overlooked.

The objector then referred to photographs taken by planning officers on separate occasions and expressed disappointment that these had been omitted from the slides shown.  He felt that they would have been relevant as they would have shown how his living room would be overlooked by the cathedral style window.  At the request of a Member he identified the position of his living room window on the site plan.  The objector also pointed out that the plan failed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Address:       53 Northwood End Road, Haynes, Bedford, MK45 3QB

Proposed single storey front and rear extension with a double storey side extension with integral garage. Demolish existing garage and shed.

Applicant:     Mr Bennett

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/00083/FULL for a proposed single storey front and rear extension with a double storey side extension with integral garage and the demolition of the existing garage and shed at 53 Northwood End Road, Haynes, Bedford, MK45 3QB.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to an additional/amended condition as set out in the Late Sheet.

In advance of consideration the Committee received a representation from Haynes Parish Council under the public participation scheme.

A Member sought clarification from the Parish Council representative regarding the latter’s comment that the foundation for the proposed double storey side extension would have to be partly built the under the neighbour’s side wall in order to centralise the weight distribution.  On receiving confirmation from the Parish Council representative on what he had said the Member advised that this was a Building Regulations issue and not one for the Committee to consider.

The ward Member referred to objections to the application which had been received from a neighbour at No. 53A Northwood End Road and the Parish Council.  She explained that the resident at No. 53A was unable to attend the meeting but he had submitted many documents to the planning officers.  The neighbour had considered the Council’s Design Guidelines in great depth and felt that the Council was, in effect, proposing to not comply with its own Guidelines.  The ward Member referred to the neighbour’s concern that there would not be, as required and confirmed by his own measurements,  a 1m gap between the ground floor side walls of No. 53A and the new extension and  the new gable end wall would be permitted on his boundary line.  In support of his objection the neighbour had referred to issues relating to the street view, the overbearing impact on his property, loss of light, loss of privacy, design, proposed construction materials and loss of amenity space and garden security.  The ward Member referred to the Late Sheet and the proposed additional condition regarding a parking arrangement and asked if the parking arrangement would be submitted for public consultation.

The ward Member then referred to the neighbour’s technical comments before she explained that under the application would result in an extremely cramped development.  Further, the front garden would become a parking area and access to the rear of the property would only be possible through the house itself.  The ward Member commented that, looking at the street scene, there was nothing absolutely consistent in the appearance of the properties.  She therefore suggested that consideration should be given to achieving a level of similarity with the adjoining semi-detached property at No. 51.  The ward Member stated that most properties in the road had gained rear extensions with which she had no issue.  However, and despite the first floor of the side extension being brought inward so it did not project as far out as the ground floor, the proposed side extension would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Address:       The Quarry House, San Remo Road, Aspley Guise, Milton Keynes, MK17 8JY

Replacement of existing tarmacadam tennis court with new dwelling.

Applicant:     Mr & Mrs Seamarks

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/01210/FULL for the replacement of an existing tarmacadam tennis court with a new dwelling at The Quarry House, San Remo Road, Aspley Guise, Milton Keynes, MK17 8JY.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses and additional comments as set out in the Late Sheet.  The planning officer also advised that since the publication of the Late Sheet an additional response had been received from the tree and landscape officer who had raised no objection to the application subject to the inclusion of relevant conditions.  In support of the recommended refusal of the application, the planning officer then referred Members to the content of the appeal decision arising from Wood v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Gravesham Borough Council (2015) and to the relevant part of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

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

The ward Member confirmed that the purpose of the infill boundary was to identify areas where the principle of development was acceptable in locations which were washed over by the Green Belt.  He stated that, as the application site sat within the identified infill boundary, the principle of development within the location should be acceptable without the need for debate.  Where the principle of development was acceptable and the proposal accorded with the three infill criteria as explained by the applicant (small scale, vacant plot of land, complimented the surrounding pattern of development) an infill development such as that before Members should be supported.  Where the principle of development was acceptable inside infill boundaries it would be contradictory to the purpose of the infill boundary for the development to be then considered harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.  The ward Member added that the applicant had confirmed that legal precedent was clear and supported the view that development inside infill boundaries would not be inappropriate or harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.  The ward Member then stated that there had been no objections to the application which suggested it had been carefully prepared and respected its neighbours and the surroundings.  There had been two registrations of support which suggested wider benefits such as the removal of the tennis court and its replacement with soft landscaping, and green roofs to the proposed dwelling, would provide visual improvement and provide additional permeable ground to aid surface water drainage.  The ward Member stated that he was present at Aspley Guise Parish Council when it had considered the application and made no objection.  Last, the ward Member referred to the already approved outbuilding on the application site.  He referred to images which he believed had been sent directly to Members of the Committee which showed how the proposed dwelling would sit within the same setting.  The images compared the consented outbuilding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Address:       4 Cotswold Farm Business Park, Millfield Lane, Caddington, Luton, LU1 4AJ

The proposal seeks the redevelopment of this previously developed land, comprising the demolition of the existing buildings, removal of hard surfaces, and for the construction of seven dwellings, private access road, parking and landscaping. The proposed development would consist of seven new dwellings with internal access road, parking and landscaping.

Applicant:     Raybridge Corporation

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/04447/FULL for the redevelopment of previously developed land, comprising the demolition of the existing buildings, removal of hard surfaces, and for the construction of seven dwellings, private access road, parking and landscaping at 4 Cotswold Farm Business Park, Millfield Lane, Caddington, Luton, LU1 4AJ.

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

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

A ward Member referred to the viability of the Cotswold Farm Business Park and pointed out that there was an advert for a vacant commercial unit at an adjacent business park at Eaton Bray.  He stated that this type of accommodation was not currently sought after and it was proven not to be commercially viable.  The ward Member added that, from a local perspective, there would be no issue regarding the loss of the units. He indicated his full support for the recommended redevelopment and also welcomed the provision of a footpath allowing pedestrian access to Caddington which would add to the sustainability of the proposal.  He concluded by stating that the application would add a small number of high quality homes to the existing local housing stock and complied with the content of the Neighbourhood Plan.

The second ward Member spoke to Caddington Parish Council’s comments opposing the application and to the Neighbourhood Plan.  He first gave the reason why the Chairman of the Parish Council’s Sub-Committee had been unable to attend although he felt that this did not explain the absence of any other Parish Council representative from the Sub-Committee to explain the Parish Council’s opposition.  The ward Member stated that the Neighbourhood Plan mentioned the Cotswold Farm Business Park as the provider of commercial business units but the Plan also mentioned that the business park at Eaton Bray had absorbed the capacity and, as mentioned, even Eaton Bray had unlet space.  Further, the Plan, whilst supporting the provision of new commercial floor space if there was somewhere appropriate for it in the Plan area, went on to state that this was not at the Cotswold Business Park due to its location and that, currently, it was not commercially viable.  He expressed disappointment with the Parish Council’s comments which he felt were flawed.  He indicated his support for the proposal and stated that it did not conflict with the aspirations of the Neighbourhood Plan.

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

·         A Member expressed incredulity at the developer’s claim that the site was unviable given the site already had most of the services in place.  The proposed seven dwellings, in the absence of any affordable homes on site, would sell for approximately £400-£500k.  He also expressed disbelief that a viability appraisal had concluded that only by the absence of affordable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Address:       Franklin House, Brewers Hill Road, Dunstable, LU6 1UU

REG 3: Change of use: from Care Home (formerly known as Greenacre) to temporary accommodation for homeless people (shared facilities).

Applicant:     Central Bedfordshire Council

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/00615/REG3 for a change of use from a care home (formerly known as Greenacre) to temporary accommodation for homeless people (shared facilities) at Franklin House, Brewers Hill Road, Dunstable, LU6 1UU.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to an additional consultation/publicity response as set out in the Late Sheet.

No representations were made under the public participation scheme.  The meeting noted that a ward Member had been unable to attend due to prior work commitments.

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

·         The proposed erection of suitable fencing.  The Chairman advised that at the site inspection it was apparent that close boarded style fencing had already been erected at some point to replace the wire mesh used when the building was a care home.  The Chairman believed that the style of the fencing erected met the requirement set out in the recommended condition.

·         The reason for the fencing was noted by Members.

·         A Member stated that the he was very aware of the need for such transitional accommodation, as it was correctly known, and was supportive.

·         The Chairman stated that, since the last meeting of the Committee, when the application had been deferred, further consultation had taken place with the police.  The police had subsequently raised no objection to the application, having been reassured by the proposed on-site overnight staffing presence.

On being put to the vote 12 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No CB/18/00615/REG3 relating to Franklin House, Brewers Hill Road, Dunstable, LU6 1UU be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.

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 22 May 2018.

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 20 June 2018 and the Site Inspections will be undertaken on 18 June 2018.

NOTED

that the next meeting of the Development Management Committee will be held on 20 June 2018.

RESOLVED

that all Members and substitute Members along with the relevant ward representatives be invited to conduct site inspections on 18 June 2018.