Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Priory House, Monks Walk, Shefford

Contact: Leslie Manning  0300 300 5132

Webcast: View the webcast

Items
No. Item

132.

Chairman's Announcements and Communications

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Chairman advised the meeting that the order of business for the planning applications would be as follows:

 

Morning: Items 6, 7, 12, 11, 13, 16.

Afternoon (not before 1.00 p.m.): Items 8, 9, 14, 10, 15.

 

 

 

133.

Minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 31 January 2018 (copy to follow).

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

A Member raised a number of points regarding the content of the minutes and the Chairman undertook to deal with these outside of the meeting.

 

RESOLVED

 

that the minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 31 January 2018 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record subject to the following amendments:

 

Apologies for Absence – delete ‘B J Spurr’

 

Substitutes – delete ‘B J Spurr’ and insert ‘F Firth’

 

 

 

134.

Members' Interests

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.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

(a)

Personal Interests:-

Member

 

 

 

 

Cllr F Firth

 

 

Cllr T Swain

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cllr M Blair

 

 

All

 

 

 

 

Cllr N Young

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cllr K Matthews

 

 

 

 

All except Cllrs Firth, Ghent and Swain

 

 

Item

 

 

 

 

10 & 15

 

16

 

 

 

 

 

 

14

 

 

15

 

 

 

 

All

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6, 7 & poss-ibly 9

 

 

7

Nature of Interest

 

 

 

 

Knows the applicants.

 

Lives within the ward.  Was not present at Houghton Regis Town Council Meeting.

 

Knows the architect.

 

Applicant is a Central Bedfordshire Council Member.

 

Knows some of the applicants through his role as the Portfolio Holder/Executive Member both for strategic planning and regeneration particularly with regard to Item 6 because he has meetings with Taylor Wimpey, Item 8 because the developer approached him to look at the land which he did as well as attending the site inspection and Item 13 as, whilst he has had no involvement with Crest Nicholson, he had, for various reasons,  met the original promotor/master developer of the land.  Has kept an open mind on all of the applications.

 

Has met the speakers through his previous position on CBC.

 

Knows the Parish Council speaker.

Present or Absent during discussion

 

Present

 

 

Present

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present

 

 

Present

 

 

 

 

Present

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present

 

 

 

 

Present

 

 

 

(b)

Personal and Prejudicial Interests:-

Member

 

 

 

 

Cllr E Ghent

Item

 

 

 

 

16

Nature of Interest

 

 

 

Recently became Executive Member for Assets.  Was not previously involved in this application which is on CBC land.

Present or Absent during discussion

 

Absent

 

 

 

 

 

 

(c)

Prior Local Council Consideration of Applications

Member

 

 

Cllr F Firth

Item

 

 

10 & 15

Parish/Town Council

 

Northill

Vote Cast

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

135.

Planning Enforcement Cases Where Formal Action Has Been Taken pdf icon PDF 48 KB

 

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.

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

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

 

 

 

136.

Planning Application No. CB/17/05913/FULL (Stotfold and Langford) pdf icon PDF 162 KB

 

Address:       Land at Taylors Road, opposite Aspen Gardens, Stotfold, Hitchin, SG5 4AX

 

Demolition of existing industrial units and development of 32 residential dwellings (including 12 affordable homes), vehicular access, pedestrian links, car parking, drainage, public open space and associated works.

 

Applicant:     Taylor Wimpey North Thames

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/05913/FULL for the demolition of existing industrial units and the development of 32 residential dwellings (including 12 affordable homes), vehicular access, pedestrian links, car parking, drainage, public open space and associated works on land at Taylors Road, opposite Aspen Gardens, Stotfold, Hitchin, SG5 4AX.

 

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

 

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Stotfold Town Council and the agent for the applicant under the public participation scheme.

 

A Member sought clarification from the Stotfold Town Council representative on sustainability in terms of employment; the Town Council having objected to the loss of the site as existing employment land.  The Member also queried whether Stotfold had a significant level of unemployment.  The Town Council representative replied that there was some unemployment but it was not at a significant level.  Another Member referred to the Town Council representative disputing the number of traffic movements and queried on what basis the Town Council had increased them to a level it felt was more appropriate.  The Town Council representative stated that the increase had been based on Central Bedfordshire Council’s own car parking policy, regarding the number of cars per dwelling, and observing the extent of car use and level of traffic movements outside the schools in Stotfold.  The Town Council representative added that at a recent public enquiry for a site in Stotfold he had asked the developers if they assumed any car movements took place within the walking and cycling areas and they had stated that they did not, hence the extremely low level of estimated vehicle movements stated in the report.

 

A Member commented that the Town Council’s assumption that there would be at least 50 vehicle movements in the morning and in the evening was based on approximately two cars per household travelling at the same time and in the same direction.  He queried whether these travel times and directions could actually vary from this assumption.  The Member also asked if the Town Council had employed a traffic engineer to establish the above or whether it was based on supposition alone.  In response the Town Council representative stated that it was based on experience and local knowledge.  He referred to the issues relating to local road junctions.  He stated that the figures were based on observations and the details had been discussed by the Town Council.  A traffic engineer had not been employed to carry out a survey.

 

A Member stated that the latest figures revealed that of twelve thousand residents in Stotfold, 70 were claiming job seekers allowance.  The unemployment rate for the town stood at 4.2% whilst the national average rate stood at 9%.  He stated that, with regard to employment sustainability, there was an existing high level of employment and job availability in Stotfold and so did not regard this as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

137.

Planning Application No. CB/17/05230/RM (Sandy) pdf icon PDF 90 KB

 

Address:       Land north-east of Walnut Close, Blunham, MK44 3NB

 

Reserved Matter: of Outline Application CB/16/4657/OUT, for the residential development of 0.49 hectares of land to form 9 bungalow/chalet dwellings with associated garaging, parking and other associated works, to include the discharge of conditions no's 2 8 9 12 & 14.

 

Applicant:     Signature Homes MK LLP

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application CB/17/05230/RM, a reserved matter of outline application CB/16/04657/OUT for the residential development of 0.49 hectares of land to form 9 bungalow/chalet dwellings with associated garaging, parking and other associated works, to include the discharge of conditions nos. 2, 8, 9, 12 and 14 on land north east of Walnut Close, Blunham, MK44 3NB.

 

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

 

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

 

In response to a query made by the Blunham Parish Council representative during his representation the Chairman explained that, arising from a ministerial statement, any development of less than 10 dwellings was unable to attract s106 contributions or be required to provide affordable housing.

 

Given the size of the site and the resulting density a Member sought clarification from the Parish Councillor as to why he thought the application represented overdevelopment.  In response the Parish Councillor stated that the application was larger than the approved outline application and Members had said at that time that anything larger would be unacceptable.  The Chairman intervened at this point and stated that he believed the reference was to the height of those properties (which lay to the rear of the northern boundary) which had originally been conditioned to be single storey but which now included dwellings of one and a half storeys (with rooms in the roof space).  Further, those properties that were single storey were as high as the one and a half storey.  The Member acknowledged that it had not been a reference to the ground area.

 

A Member sought clarification from the objector regarding the latter’s claim that a turning area had been blocked.  In response the objector explained that two parking spaces at the southern end of The Barns (an extension to the original Close) had already been removed to provide a turning area.  In view of the absence of any alternative parking provision visitors parked on the turning area.  This prevented residents from reversing out of their properties, turning and then driving forward out of Walnut Close.  Instead they had to reverse out of The Barns and Walnut Close.

 

Following earlier expressions of concern regarding egress from the properties in The Barns the agent for the applicant stated that the Council’s highways officer had assessed the application and had raised no issue with regard to the blocking of access to the objector’s property. 

 

A ward Member indicated his support for the residents’ objections.  He stated that he drove into Walnut Close on a regular basis and could confirm that drivers had to reverse out of The Barns and turn to drive out of Walnut Close.  Reversing back into Walnut Close was particularly dangerous because of the parking on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

138.

Planning Application No. CB/17/04638/FULL (Aspley and Woburn) pdf icon PDF 76 KB

 

Address:       Public Convenience, Duck Lane, Woburn, MK17 9PT

 

Redevelopment of a brownfield site within the infill boundary with a residential development of 1 new dwelling. Demolition of the existing public conveniences.

 

Applicant:     Goldcrest Developments (MK) Ltd

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding the redevelopment of a brownfield site within the infill boundary with a residential development of one new dwelling and demolition of the existing public conveniences at Duck Lane, Woburn, MK17 9PT.

 

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 the meeting of an error on line 1 of recommended condition 3.  The condition should be amended to read “All new doors and windows should be timber and detailed…”

 

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Woburn Parish Council and the agent for the applicant under the public participation scheme.  In addition the Chairman advised Members that a person who had been registered to speak on behalf of Bedford Estates, which objected to the application, had been unable to attend the meeting because of the weather conditions.  It was noted that she lived some distance from the Council Offices.  The Chairman advised, however, that the registered speaker had prepared a statement and he read out a copy on her behalf.

 

A Member sought clarification regarding reference in the absent speaker’s statement that the public convenience was currently in use.  In response the Chairman stated that the most recent use was as a public convenience for which it had not been used for some time.

 

Another Member sought clarification from the agent for the application regarding her use of the phrase ‘pastiche design’, used to describe those newer buildings which attempted to replicate the Georgian style found in Woburn, as being inappropriate for the proposed dwelling.  He also referred to her comment that Duck Lane was built in the 19th and 20th centuries.  He asked if she regarded the half-timbered building (3 Duck Lane) adjacent to the development site as a pastiche design.  In response the applicant’s agent stated that she did not know the age of the half-timbered building but she had assumed it was older than some of the others.  However, Duck Lane was possibly a service lane and the development which had taken place on the west side of the road was newer than other parts of Woburn.  There was a mock Georgian building (1 Duck Lane) on the corner with Leighton Street and the design was subjective with some believing the design fitted in whilst others would feel the attempt to replicate Georgian buildings failed because of the modern form and its execution.  Equally, on the southern side of the timber framed buildings was a row of four 1970’s buildings which were of a design which could be found anywhere.  Those buildings had not been designed specifically for Duck Lane.  The proposed dwelling represented an evolution in design terms in the local area and that it was not necessary to simply replicate what had been done before.  Further, whatever was done, it was important that it would be of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.

At the conclusion of Item 12 above Councillor B Wells left the meeting

Additional documents:

139.

Planning Application No. CB/17/05250/FULL (Silsoe and Shillington) pdf icon PDF 103 KB

 

Address:       Land to south-west of Higham Cottages, Higham Road, Higham Gobion (nearest post code SG5 3HN)

 

Proposed grain store including new access and means of enclosure.

 

Applicant:     Chamberlain Holdings PLC

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/05250/FULL for a proposed grain store including new access and means of enclosure on land to the south west of Higham Cottages, Higham Road, Higham Gobion.

 

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional/publicity responses, additional comments and additional/amended conditions in the form of additional informatives as set out in the Late Sheet.  In addition the planning officer advised the meeting of an additional recommended condition to ensure that the proposed building and premises were used only for the purposes of agricultural storage.   There was also an error in recommended condition 6.  The distance given of ‘215.0mm’ should be amended to read ‘215m’.  Following a query by the Chairman the planning officer explained that the new condition had been introduced because of an existing industrial site nearby.  He also confirmed that the new building was to remain in agricultural use in perpetuity unless an application was made otherwise.

 

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

 

A Member sought clarification from the applicant’s agent regarding the loss of the existing grain store and the reason for the location of the proposed grain store.  In response the agent stated that the existing store had already been lost and the tenant farmer only had a small amount of temporary storage. However, the tenant currently had to transport crops off site to a remote storage facility which was not financially viable.  The proposed grain store would be located centrally between the two land holdings.

 

The Member then sought clarification regarding the agent’s mention of restrictions around the location of the proposed store to the existing cluster of buildings at Manor Farm when, she felt, it would cause less landscape harm if it was placed close to existing farm buildings and why this was not an option.  The agent responded that the Manor Farm business park was entirely tenanted by a veterinary practice so putting a building on the site or using its access was not possible legally because of the tenancy that existed.  A building could be put on the opposite side of the road where there was a junction but there were no access points on to the land so a new one would need to be provided.  However, it was a more elevated position so it was felt that putting the proposed grain store lower down in the dip of the landscape was preferable than at the top of a hill where it would be more prominent.

 

At the request of the Member the agent defined the tenanted area to the north of Higham Road.

 

Another Member sought clarification as to the location of Manor Farm and Bury Farm in relation to the proposed grain store site and the former storage site at Chalton Cross and the distance involved in miles.  In response the agent stated that the former arrangement, by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

At the conclusion of Item 11 above Councillors Collins and Ghent left the meeting

Additional documents:

The Committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m. and reconvened at 1.38 p.m.

Additional documents:

Prior to consideration of Item 13 below Councillors A Brown, S Dixon, Mrs S Goodchild and A Graham entered the Chamber

Additional documents:

140.

Planning Application No. CB/17/05966/VOC (Stotfold and Langford) pdf icon PDF 259 KB

 

Address:       Former Pig Testing Unit, Hitchin Road, Stotfold (nearest post code SG5 4JG)

 

Removal of Condition No. 16 of planning permission ref: CB/15/03182/FULL dated 18/12/15.

 

Applicant:     Crest Nicholson Chiltern

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/05966/VOC for the removal of condition no. 16 of planning permission ref: CB/15/03182/FULL dated 18/12/15 at the former Pig Testing Unit, Hitchin Road, Fairfield.

 

The Committee was aware that Condition 16 required the occupation of an apartment block of 19 residential units by those aged over 55 only.

 

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 applicant under the public participation scheme.

 

A Member sought clarification from the applicant regarding where the apartment units had been marketed.  He also referred to the applicant’s brochure for the development as a whole which pointed out the benefits of living so closely to Letchworth and the facilities available in nearby Fairfield Park but which did not appear to refer to the over 55 accommodation.  In response the applicant stated that reference to the apartments was not necessarily in the brochure as its purpose was to show what they looked like.  She referred the Member online to Right Move and in advertisements where it was clear the apartments were for over 55s.  In response to a comment by the Member that the advertisements for over 55 accommodation had only been made on line and not within the brochure the applicant stated that the only persons receiving the brochure were those who had already expressed an interest in purchasing a property on the development.  The applicant referred to a log of the interest shown since May 2017 recorded by sales advisors of the interest shown in the apartments.  She stated that approximately 20 persons had made enquiries, many of whom had not been over 55.

 

Members had noted earlier that three reservations for apartments had been registered.

 

In response to a query by the Chairman the applicant stated that a couple of advertisements had also been placed in local newspapers.  She added that visitors to the site were advised of the over 55 accommodation.

 

A Member asked what the price would be for the apartments.  The applicant stated that she believed the prices ranged from £270k for a two bedroomed apartment and 350k for a three bedroomed apartment with terrace.

 

A Member asked what market research was carried out regarding over 55 accommodation before the original application had been submitted.  The applicant stated that the site had been purchased with planning permission which included the provision of over 55 accommodation.  The company had been fully aware of that aspect of the permission.  Some advice was taken from Connells, a local estate agent which had been heavily involved in selling the Fairfield development.  Connells had expressed concerns about being able to sell that many (19) apartments from the site and whether there would be sufficient demand as Connells believed the area was more attractive to young persons and families.  The marketing exercise which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140.

141.

Planning Application No. CB/18/00077/FULL (Houghton Hall) pdf icon PDF 123 KB

 

Address:       Co-Op Supermarket, High Street, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, LU5 5QT

 

Temporary use of land as car park with minor works, temporary stationing of 2 no. portable buildings for ancillary use as security and shelter and temporary stationing of lighting.

 

Applicant:     Whitbread Group plc

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/00077/FULL for the temporary use of land as a car park with minor works, temporary stationing of 2 no. portable buildings for ancillary use as security and shelter and temporary stationing of lighting at the Co-operative Supermarket, High Street, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, LU5 5QT.

 

No additional consultation/publicity responses, comments or additional/amended conditions were 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 sensitivity regarding the site since the fire in 2005.  The Member stated that, whilst content to leave recommended condition 1 relating to the end date of the use of the site as a temporary car park unamended, she sought assurance from officers that if the Council needed to extend the period beyond the recommended end date, then consultation would take place with local Members, Houghton Regis Town Council and the local community.  The ward Member stated that she wished to see the matter be dealt with in as transparent manner as possible.  She also felt that any extension should not exceed one month.  The ward Member again referred to public scrutiny around the application and to the recommended condition that stated that the site would be returned to its pre-development condition.  However, a number of local residents had pointed out to her that this could not happen because a tree had already been felled on the site.  Whilst not a material planning issue she felt it worthy of note given the public interest in the site.

 

The planning officer responded to the points raised so far as follows:

 

·         Should an extension to the temporary use was sought a new application would be required to vary the condition.  Consultation would take place with relevant parties.  The Chairman queried whether, if the requirement was for, say, one month, it would fall within the officer’s authority to grant the extension without the need for a new application.  In response the planning officer referred to the content of the recommended condition which stated that the use of the site as a temporary car park would cease on 31 July in accordance with the proposed six month period.  He added that in view of the Independent Living Scheme for Older Persons (which was due to be built on the site) there would be a reluctance to extend the period.  However, if a request to extend the period was sought there would need to be a variation.  The Chairman assured the ward Member that the need for a new application would therefore arise and consultation would take place.

·         A Member stated that the recommended temporary use cessation date was a condition and the Committee could make that more open ended until such time that work was ready to commence on the Independent Living Scheme.  This would remove the need the matter to return to the Committee.

·         With  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

At the conclusion of Item 16 above Councillors S Dixon and Mrs S Goodchild left the meeting

Additional documents:

142.

Planning Application No. CB/17/00442/VOC (Silsoe and Shillington) pdf icon PDF 57 KB

 

Address:       Land rear of 7 - 37 Barton Road, Gravenhurst, Bedford,

MK45 4JP

 

Variation of condition 14 attached to planning permission reference CB/15/04081/OUT dated 17 January 2017 so that landscaping on the south eastern boundary of the site is carried out in accordance with drawing number WHK20175 11E  (Southern Boundary Proposals).

 

Applicant:     The RonCon Trust

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/00442/VOC for the variation of condition 14 attached to planning permission reference CB/15/04081/OUT dated 17 January 2017 so that landscaping on the south eastern boundary of the site was carried out in accordance with drawing number WHK20175 11E (Southern Boundary Proposals) on land rear of 7-37 Barton Road, Gravenhurst, Bedford, MK45 4JP.

 

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional/amended conditions in the form of an additional 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 sought clarification from the agent.  The Member stated that he had closely examined the trees (the subject of the application together with other landscape features) when on the Council’s site inspection and several appeared to have been dead for approximately ten years.  He asked the agent if the applicant could remove the trees regardless of their condition given they were not covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).  In response the agent referred to the planning officer’s introduction and to the arboriculture report submitted in support of the application which stated that the trees were not protected by any designation and could be removed at any time.

 

A second Member sought clarification as to whether the proposed layout of the trees lay within private gardens or outside them.  In response the agent explained that the layout was a Reserved Matter and would come forward with a Reserved Matters application.  The application before Members was for a variation to a condition attached to the existing outline planning permission.  There was an illustrative layout but that was not necessarily the layout that would be submitted under Reserved Matters.

 

A Member asked the agent to confirm that there was a provisional layout which placed some of the trees outside of the gardens and some inside them.  In response the agent stated that in terms of the current proposal the outline planning permission included a management plan which sought to protect the landscape features on the site.  With regard to the location of the proposed trees some were within gardens but that was not to be determined at this stage.

 

A Member asked if it would be possible to lay out the site in such a way that the trees would not be in private gardens.  The agent advised that the scheme had been considered so that it would be possible to retain the trees that the Council’s officers had considered to be of importance.  With regard to the trees on the south-eastern boundary he stated that options had been considered whereby they were protected or there could be a means of protecting them.  That was the key intention of the condition.  The Member felt her question had not been answered and repeated it.  The agent stated that in terms of the layout of the site and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.

At the conclusion of Item 8 above Councillor A Graham left the meeting

Additional documents:

The Committee adjourned at 3.10 p.m. and reconvened at 3.17 p.m.

Additional documents:

143.

Planning Application No. CB/17/02615/OUT (Shefford) pdf icon PDF 98 KB

 

Address:       Pinehurst, 17A Ivel Road, Shefford, SG17 5LB

 

Outline application for residential development comprising 31 no 2, 3, 4 & 5 bedroom houses, and 6 no 1 & 2 bedroom apartments (37 no total dwellings) following demolition of existing single dwelling with new access onto Ivel Road and reconfigured parking for existing office.

 

Applicant:     BBR Architects

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/02615/OUT, an outline application for a residential development comprising 31 no 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom houses, and 6 no 1 and 2 bedroom apartments (37 no total dwellings) following demolition of existing single dwelling with new access onto Ivel Road and reconfigured parking for existing office at Pinehurst, 17A Ivel Road, Shefford, SG17 5LB.

 

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.  The Committee noted that a typographical error had occurred and the reference to ‘Stotfold Town Memorial Association’ should be amended to read ‘Shefford Town Memorial Association’.

 

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Shefford Town Council under the public participation scheme.

 

A Member sought clarification from the Town Council representative regarding the 250 vehicle movements per day which the latter had suggested would arise from the development.  The Town Council representative informed the meeting that the number was based on guidance found on a website which advised town and parish councils on this issue.  The Member suggested that the link to the website be provided to the highways officer for consideration given the different outcomes that had been arrived at by the two parties.

 

A ward Member objected to the application on the following grounds:

 

·         the Council had recently established a five year land supply so the application was non-essential.

·         Ivel Road was a major road link between the A507 bypass to the town centre.  He referred to the difficulties experienced in vehicle movements and parking obstructions in Ivel Road at the section where the site access was proposed.

·         The Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to restrict parking in Ivel Road but only provide two parking spaces in the site would create an ongoing problem for the residents of Ivel Road.

·         To recognise that restrictions on parking would only be required during the operation of waste collections confirmed that the problem was anticipated and restrictions could not be enforced.  Should the emergency services or other vehicles be required to enter the site major problems would arise.

·         Whilst Anglian Water had claimed it had sufficient capacity to process foul drainage from the site at Clifton Water Recycling Centre he queried whether the drainage infrastructure was able to transport it to the Centre.  On many occasions he had witnessed the need for Clifton Road to be unblocked using a tanker vehicle as the system was gravity fed rather than through a pump system.  He added that the presence of a parked tanker adversely affected vehicle movements.

·         The list of items being considered for financial contribution recognised the importance of the Shefford Town Memorial Association (STMA) play area within the town.  It would be of benefit to the developer because it would not need to provide play areas as the STMA play area was on the site’s boundary.

·         There were no school places available  ...  view the full minutes text for item 143.

At the conclusion of item 9 above Councillor A Brown left the meeting.

Additional documents:

144.

Planning Application No. CB/17/06061/FULL (Ampthill) pdf icon PDF 118 KB

 

Address:       14 Verne Drive, Ampthill, Bedford, MK45 2PS

 

First floor side extension above garage/utility (previous planning permission CB/15/01464/Full).

 

Applicant:     Mrs L Brown

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No.  CB/17/06061/FULL for a first floor side extension above garage/utility (previous planning permission CB/15/01464/FULL) at 14 Verne Drive, Ampthill, Bedford, MK45 2PS.

 

The meeting noted that the item was before the Committee because the applicant was a member of staff within the development management team.

 

There were no additional consultation/publicity responses, comments or additional/amended conditions reported in the Late Sheet.

 

A ward Member indicated that he had no objection to the application.

 

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

 

·         A Member stressed that the application was not being approved automatically.  He understood that the proposal had already been through the proper process so the Committee’s reaffirmation was being sought.  The status of the application was discussed given that the same proposal was granted permission by the Committee in May 2015. 

·         The ward Member reiterated that he had no objections to the application and he believed that Ampthill Town Council had none either.

·         The Chairman commented that the application was new and not simply to be reaffirmed.

·         A Member stressed the complete absence to any objections to the application.

 

On being put to the vote 10 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.

 

RESOLVED

 

that Planning Application No. CB/17/06061/FULL relating to 14 Verne Drive, Ampthill, Bedford, MK45 2PS be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.

 

 

 

145.

Planning Application No. CB/17/06001/FULL (Northill) pdf icon PDF 53 KB

 

Address:       Water Lane Farm, Biggleswade Road, Upper Caldecote, Biggleswade, SG18 9BP

 

The construction of two agricultural barns.

 

Applicant:     Maudlin G J & Sons

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/06001/FULL for the construction of two agricultural barns at Water Lane Farm, Biggleswade Road, Upper Caldecote, Biggleswade, SG18 9BP.

 

The meeting noted that the item was before the Committee because the applicant was related to a Member of the Council.

 

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

 

No representations were made under the public representation scheme.

 

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

 

·         In response to a Member’s query the officer stated that two existing barns would be removed and replaced by an agricultural building.

 

(Note: At this point in the proceedings Councillor Firth referred to his earlier declaration of a Personal Interest for this item and sought confirmation that he was able to move the recommendation.  The legal officer advised that he was).

 

On being put to the vote 10 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.

 

RESOLVED

 

that Planning Application No. CB/17/06001/FULL relating to Water Lane Farm, Biggleswade Road, Upper Caldecote, Biggleswade, SG18 9BP be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.

 

 

 

146.

Planning Application No. CB/17/05981/FULL (Northill) pdf icon PDF 36 KB

 

Address:       203 Biggleswade Road, Upper Caldecote, Biggleswade,

SG18 9BJ

 

Single storey rear extension and alterations.

 

Applicant:     Ms C Maudlin

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/05981//FULL for a single storey rear extension and alterations at 203 Biggleswade Road, Upper Caldecote, Biggleswade, SG18 9BJ.

 

The meeting noted that the item was before the Committee because the applicant was a Member of the Council.

 

There were no additional consultation/publicity responses, comments or additional/amended conditions reported in the Late Sheet.

 

No representations were made under the public representation scheme.

 

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

 

·         A Member’s reference to comments from a neighbour regarding the impact of the application on the access to the side of the property.  Another Member pointed out that the applicant’s agent had confirmed in writing that the proposal would not encroach on the neighbour’s legal rights of way.

 

On being put to the vote 10 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.

 

RESOLVED

 

that Planning Application No. CB/17/05981/FULL relating to 203 Biggleswade Road, Upper Caldecote, Biggleswade, SG18 9BJ be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.

 

 

 

147.

Late Sheet pdf icon PDF 118 KB

 

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 27 February 2018.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

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.

 

 

 

148.

Site Inspection Appointment(s)

 

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 28 March 2018 and the Site Inspections will be undertaken on 26 March 2018.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

NOTED

 

that the next meeting of the Development Management Committee will be held on 28 March 2018.

 

RESOLVED

 

that all Members and substitute Members along with the relevant ward representatives be invited to conduct site inspections on 26 March 2018.