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 set out on the agenda.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 28 February 2018 (copy to follow).

The Chairman advised that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 28 February 2018 had not yet been published.

RESOLVED

that the confirmation and signing of the minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 28 February 2018 be deferred until the next meeting.

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 and Appeals Team Leader.

Address:       Land north of Cranfield Airport, College Road (nearest postcode MK43 0AH)

Hybrid planning application relating to: Full planning application relating to proposed Air Park facility (Phase 1) to include 2 no. of aircraft hangars with ancillary atrium and offices; 1 no. of Fixed Base Operator (FBO) Airport Terminal building; 1 no. of ground support building; 1 no. of Class B1 office building; 1 no. of biomass energy centre; 1 no. of security gatehouse; 1 no. of fuel storage area; and associated development to include new roundabout junction, public art installations, runway resurfacing, airport apron, new taxi way link, perimeter fencing, landscaping, car parking and accesses. Outline planning application relating to proposed Air Park facility (Phase 2) to include 3 no. of aircraft hangars; 1 no. of hotel; and associated development to include airport apron, new taxi way link, perimeter fencing, landscaping, car parking (with all matters reserved except for layout and access).

Applicant:     Cranfield University and London Cranfield Jet Centre Ltd

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application CB/17/05862/OUT, a hybrid planning application relating to: Full planning application relating to proposed Air Park facility (Phase 1) to include 2 no. of aircraft hangars with ancillary atrium and offices; 1 no. of Fixed Base Operator (FBO) Airport Terminal building; 1 no. of ground support building; 1 no. of Class B1 office building; 1 no. of biomass energy centre; 1 no. of security gatehouse; 1 no. of fuel storage area; and associated development to include new roundabout junction, public art installations, runway resurfacing, airport apron, new taxi-way link, perimeter fencing, landscaping, car parking and accesses. Outline planning application relating to proposed Air Park facility (Phase 2) to include 3 no. of aircraft hangars; 1 no. of hotel; and associated development to include airport apron, new taxi-way link, perimeter fencing, landscaping, car parking (with all matters reserved except for layout and access) on land north of Cranfield Airport, College Road.

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.

During the planning officer’s introduction a Member sought clarification on the officer’s statement that the scheme was predominantly for private jets.  The Member asked if larger sized jets, such as Boeing 737s, were likely to make use of the proposed development.  In response the planning officer advised that 737s were already licensed to use Cranfield Airport and facilities existed to allow them to do so.  However, given that the business jet use of this aircraft was limited to very wealthy individuals, he believed that 737s would be less frequent visitors than the smaller business jets, such as those produced by the Gulfstream company.  The planning officer emphasised that the sound contour model had used the Hawker 800XP jet, which was noisier than a 737, and the model therefore represented a ‘worst case scenario’.

In advance of consideration of this item the Committee received representations from Cranfield Parish Council, objectors to the application and

the applicants under the public participation scheme.

A Member sought clarification from the Parish Council representative regarding the age of the existing buildings at the airport.   The Member stated that they appeared to date from the 1950’s and 60’s rather than the Second World War and therefore appeared more significant than a simple grass airstrip used by the Royal Air Force (RAF).  In response the Parish Council representative advised that the Airfield had been built in the 1930’s, originally as a RAF training facility, and had been used as such during the war.  It had been decommissioned after the war and used for aeronautical research, though also retained for use as an airport and mainly used by private flying schools employing small aircraft.  He stressed that that the airport was no longer used by the RAF, one runway had been reduced in length because of the construction of the nearby Nissan facility and its use as an airport had shrunk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

Address:       109 Jeans Way, Dunstable, LU5 4PR

Demolition of the existing and replacement of the Scout Hut with a new Scout Hut building.

Applicant:     The Scout Association Trust Corporation

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/04643/FULL for the demolition of the existing hut and replacement of the Scout Hut with a new Scout Hut building at 109 Jeans Way, Dunstable, LU5 4PR.

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

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from an objector to the application.  Prior to the representation the Chairman referred to an email and attached document which had been sent to him by the objector with a request that the document be considered.  He advised that the planning officer had circulated the document to all Members of the Committee.

A Member sought clarification from the objector regarding her comment that the applicant had refused to engage in discussions with her regarding her concerns.  In response the objector stated that she had emailed a Scout Association representative who had been defensive in his response because, she felt, of her attempts to generate wider interest in the application.  She was aware that other residents had made complaints about the existing Scout building with regard to parking and other issues.  However, only certain properties had been consulted by the Council on the current application and no-one else appeared to be aware of it.  She herself had not received an invitation to a public meeting organised by the Scout Association on the application.  The objector stated that she had attempted further communications with the Scout Association representative setting out her concerns with a request to discuss them but she had not received any response.

Another Member referred to the objector’s reference to security in her document and her comment during her representation that she did not wish to discuss the matter in public.  The Member stated that without additional information being provided it was difficult to consider the issue further.  In response the objector stated that she felt unable to provide any information on the basis that, if the application was approved, the potential security issue could be exploited.  She also commented that other people who had seen the application plans had instinctively seen the issue to which she was referring and could not understand why it was not also apparent to the Member and to those who had attended the site inspection.   In response the Member, who had attended the site inspection, stated that the security issue to which she referred was still not apparent to him.

In response to a query by the Chairman the objector advised that the security issue did not exist with the current Scout building.  Another Member asked what aspects of the proposed building caused the security concerns.  The objector replied that if she did so she would, in effect, state what the issue was.  She further stated that she had offered (when giving her representation) to discuss the issues privately.  The Chairman informed her that the offer to discuss matters privately caused  ...  view the full minutes text for item 154.

Address:       Land and buildings at 35-41 High Street, builders office and entrance to Primrose Lane, Arlesey (nearest postcode

SG15 6RA)

Remodelling of the High Street, Primrose Lane, Mill Lane, Station Road junction and creation of a new southern access to land west of the High Street, demolition of existing site buildings and erection of two retail and twenty residential units.

Applicant:     Warden Developments Ltd, Samuel Beadie (Arlesey) Ltd

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/16/05513/FULL for the remodelling of the High Street, Primrose Lane, Mill Lane, Station Road junction and creation of a new southern access to land west of the High Street, demolition of existing site buildings and erection of two retail and twenty residential units at land and buildings at 35-41 High Street, builders office and entrance to Primrose Lane, Arlesey.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses, amended/additional conditions and additional informatives as set out in the Late Sheet.  The planning officer also advised that two additional comments had been received from neighbours to the application site after the Late Sheet had been compiled.  The neighbours had objected to the application and expressed concern over highways issues relating to traffic generation and parking provision.  The planning officer stated that all of the issues had been covered within the officer report.

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

A ward Member commented that the former garage forecourt (to the northern side of the junction) was full of cars as it was used as an informal parking space by local residents after 7.00 p.m.  He also stated that, in his capacity as an Executive Member for Highways, he was constantly asked for parking enforcement in the area to resolve some of the traffic issues.  Whilst the application attempted to meet planning requirements, including those for parking, the extensive use of the forecourt space exceeded the parking provision which would be provided by the proposed three parking spaces.  The ward Member emphasised that he had concerns, as did Arlesey Town Council and others, on the proposed level of parking provision compared to the large number of vehicles already being parked on the site.

The ward Member next drew the Committee’s attention to the Town Council’s concern regarding the demolition of a 1920’s Art Deco building and 19^th century cottages should the development be approved.  He did, however, acknowledge that demolition was necessary.  He also acknowledged an element of conflict given that the previous application for the site had been approved and, technically, the current application met the Council’s design guide requirements for parking spaces.  The ward Member then reminded the meeting that the Town Council had not supported the previous application and it had asked the ward Member to make clear that it did not support the current one.

The ward Member stated that he could see the merits in the provision of the proposed roundabout, which he preferred to traffic lights, and which he felt would actually help with the traffic flow.  He expressed appreciation of the applicant’s decision to change the proposal with regard to this matter.

The ward Member stated that the Town Council had asked him to make the Committee fully aware its concerns regarding the application.  He then commented that whilst it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

Address:       Land at roundabout at jnct of College Chase and Mander Farm Road, Silsoe, Bedford, MK45 4QP

Mixed use development including 5 no. mixed use commercial premises (use classes A1, A2, A3, B1(a)), 1 no commercial premises (class B1(A)) and 5 no. residential apartments (use class C3), together with associated parking and access.

Applicant:     GPS Estates Ltd

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/04986/FULL for a mixed use development including 5 no. mixed use commercial premises (use classes A1, A2, A3, B1(a)), 1 no. commercial premises (class B1(a)) and 5 no. residential apartments (use class C3), together with associated parking and access on land at roundabout at junction of College Chase and Mander Farm Road, Silsoe, Bedford, MK45 4QP.

The Committee noted that a notable difference between the current application and the previously approved scheme was the joining of the two units and the utilisation of the roof space with the addition of dormers.

No additional consultation/publicity responses, additional comments or additional/amended conditions were set out in the Late Sheet.  However, the planning officer advised of a comment from a local resident which had been received that morning.  Concerns had been expressed on the design, the potential for noise and disturbance as a result of the car parking and bus stop location adjacent to the site.  The planning officer responded to the issues raised.

Prior to consideration of the application the Chairman informed the Committee that Silsoe Parish Council had submitted a request to speak at the meeting earlier that morning.  As the request had been submitted after the deadline of 5.00 p.m. the previous day the request had been refused.  However, the Chairman asked the planning officer to respond to most if not all of the points raised by the Parish Council (as set out in the officer’s report) in order to show that consideration had been given to their concerns.

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 applicant’s agent as to whether any interest had been shown in the provision of an A3 (restaurant) use in the proposed development.  In response the agent explained that the application was for mixed use in order to establish what interest would be forthcoming.  The Member added that the restaurant use would be restricted due to the need to close at 10.00 p.m. (Mondays to Saturdays) and queried whether this restriction would not hinder a restaurant’s appeal.  The applicant’s agent replied that the location was geared towards the daytime and early evening economy rather than as a destination for diners.  He stressed that the restaurant use was only one of the possible commercial uses which could operate from the development and the application sought a flexible consent for this reason.

The ward Member stated that she had intended to speak on behalf of Silsoe Parish Council but would now leave this to the planning officer.  The ward Member then stated that she would focus on her main point which was a design principle.  She referred to the nearby, attractive Miller Homes cottages which had been designed to complement the cottage frontage of the mediaeval High Street and had blended in extremely well.  Turning to the application before Members she stated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

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 March 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 25 April 2018 and the Site Inspections will be undertaken on 23 April 2018.

NOTED

that the next meeting of the Development Management Committee will be held on 25 April 2018.

RESOLVED

that all Members and substitute Members along with the relevant ward representatives be invited to conduct site inspections on 23 April 2018.

The Chairman advised the Committee that Ann Rowland (Team Leader Sustainable Transport) was retiring.  In response Members expressed their appreciation of her services to the Committee and the Chairman asked that this be passed on to Ms Rowland.