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

62.

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 5, 6, 7, 12, 10.

Afternoon (not before 1.30 p.m.): Items 9, 8, 11.

 

 

 

63.

Minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meetings of the Development Management Committee held on 18 July 2018 and 15 August 2018 (copies to follow).

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

NOTED

 

that the minutes of the meetings of the Development Management Committee held on 18 July 2018 and 15 August 2018 had not yet been published.

 

 

 

64.

Members' Interests

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

(a)

Personal Interests:-

Member

 

 

Cllr K Matthews

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cllr K Collins

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cllr N Young

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cllr I Dalgarno

Item

 

 

5, 6, 7 & 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All

 

 

 

 

 

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nature of Interest

 

 

Has met some of the speakers over a period of years due to the nature of the position he has held and currently does.

 

Has met the applicant on several occasions because the applicant has undertaken work within the Member’s ward.  The application had not been discussed.

 

Knows some of the applicants through his role as Portfolio Holder/Executive Member.

 

Met the applicant with Cllr R Stay.  Cllr Young confined his discussion to policy and issues related to the Green Belt.  He retained an open mind.

 

Knows the next door neighbours to the applicant through being the ward Member.  As a result of discussion with them, and at their request, he called the item in for determination by the Committee.  Has retained an open mind.

 

Present or Absent during discussion

 

Present

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present

 

 

 

 

 

Present

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present

(b)

Personal and Prejudicial Interests:-

Member

 

 

Cllr K Janes

Item

 

 

12

Nature of Interest

 

Member owns care homes.

Present or Absent during discussion

 

Absent

 

 

 

(c)

Prior Local Council Consideration of Applications

Member

 

 

Cllr F Firth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cllr I Dalgarno

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cllr K Collins

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cllr R Berry

 

Item

 

 

8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 & 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parish/Town Council

 

Northill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arlesey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slip End

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leighton-Linslade

 

 

 

 

Vote Cast

 

 

No.  Took no part in the Parish Council discussion and retained an open mind as ward Member.

 

No.  Present as ward Member at Parish Council but took no part in discussion and retained an open mind.

 

No. Not present when the application was discussed by the Parish Council.  At the previous meeting there were several members of the public who discussed what was to become the application.  Spoke to them as ward Member to explain the planning process but made no comment on what was to become the application.  Attended the applicant’s public meeting before the application was submitted.  Spoke to the applicant but made no comment on the application.

 

No.  Is the Town Council ward councillor for the application site but attended the Town Council planning committee as a CBC Member.  Met with local residents after the meeting and provided only factual information.  He expressed no opinion and has retained an open mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

During consideration of Item 5 below Councillor C Hegley entered the Chamber

Additional documents:

65.

Planning Application No. CB/18/00223/OUT (Arlesey) pdf icon PDF 977 KB

 

Address:       Land to the rear of Stondon Lower School and playing fields, Upper Stondon, SG16 6QB

 

Outline: Formation of new access together with residential development of 40 dwellings together with associated landscaping and engineering operations.

 

Applicant:     Optimis Consulting

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/00223/OUT, an outline application for the formulation of a new access together with a residential development of 40 dwellings together with associated landscaping and engineering operations on land to the rear of Stondon Lower School and playing fields, Upper Stondon, SG16 6QB.

 

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 representations from Councillor Nigel Benson of Stondon Parish Council and Mr Justin Wickersham, the applicant’s agent, under the public participation scheme.

 

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

 

·         Whilst the applicant was willing to work with the community the triggers for the delivery of the local facilities had to be appropriate and the applicant was the primary party in the discussions on the S106 Agreement.  The planning officer suggested that it might be more suitable to work with Members rather than other bodies on the delivery schedule to ensure the triggers were appropriate.

·         The applicant had made clear his commitment to the delivery of the facilities.

·         There were no objections from the Internal Drainage officers or the Environment Agency and conditions were included for surface water, drainage plans and maintenance plans.  A condition could be imposed for foul water drainage scheme if desired by Members.

·         A second planning officer referred to the long term relationship between the applicant and the Parish Council in progressing the application and he felt that co-operation should continue in deciding the triggers for inclusion in the S106.  He reiterated that the applicant was the primary party and the Council had, therefore, to work through the applicant.  However, the Council would also wish to take account of the views of the Parish Council to ensure the application worked in a logical and appropriate way.

 

The ward Member, who was a member of the Committee, stated:

 

·         That he, together with the other ward Members, would work with all parties to ensure the phasing plan for the application worked to everyone’s benefit.

·         The site was outside the settlement envelope but represented sensible infill.

·         Recent major development in the area had provided no additional facilities.  The monies made available through previous S106 Agreements lay unused with Central Bedfordshire but the current application and another (minute DC/18/66 below refers) combined with these new monies to enable the provision of much improved facilities.

·         The level of affordable housing was welcomed.

·         All ward Members supported the application which, it was felt, would provide major benefits.

 

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

 

·         That the village accepted the application, wanted to make it work and thereby benefit from it.

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

that Planning Application No. CB/18/ 00223/OUT relating to land to the rear of Stondon Lower School and playing fields, Upper Stondon, SG16 6QB be approved as set out in the Schedule  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

During consideration of Item 6 below Councillor R Stay entered the Chamber

Additional documents:

66.

Planning Application No. CB/18/00231/FULL (Arlesey) pdf icon PDF 240 KB

 

Address:       Land adjacent to 6 The Pastures, Upper Stondon, Henlow, SG16 6QB

 

Demolition of existing village hall and sports pavilion and provision of a new Village Hall, Sports Pavilion, Tennis Court, School Play Ground together with improved car parking, footways, fences, gates, landscaping and associated engineering operations.

 

Applicant:     Optimis Consulting

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/00231/FULL for the demolition of an existing village hall and sports pavilion and the provision of a new village hall, sports pavilion, tennis court, school playground together with improved car parking, footways, fences, gates, landscaping and associated engineering operations on land adjacent to 6 The Pastures, Upper Stondon, SG16 6QB.

 

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

 

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from Councillor Nigel Benson of Stondon Parish Council and a joint representation from Mr Justin Wickersham, the agent for the applicant, and Mr Martyn Beazley, a volunteer for the Stondon Recreation Association, under the public participation scheme.

 

In response to a query regarding the design standard of the new sports pavilion and in relation to the Football Association and football club use, Mr Wickersham advised that there was a limit on the capacity for football at that location.  Although the FA had been involved, and the sports pavilion would be built as far as possible to meet FA requirements, it would be a local facility and was being funded as part of the development.

 

A ward Member, who was a member of the Committee, stated:

 

·         The proposed increase in parking provision represented a great improvement over the limited parking outside the existing village hall.

·         There would be a loss of existing facilities but these would be replaced by better ones.

·         The application represented a substantial increase in sports and leisure opportunities.

·         He supported the local recreation group bringing the application forward.

·         Whilst concerns had been expressed by some residents the benefits of the application outweighed them and he indicated his support.

 

The Committee considered the application.

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

that Planning Application No. CB/18/00231/FULL relating to land adjacent to 6 The Pastures, Upper Stondon, SG16 6QB be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.

 

 

 

67.

Planning Application No. CB/18/01424/OUT (Potton) pdf icon PDF 239 KB

 

Address:       Land to the west of Everton Road, Everton Road, Potton

SG19 2PD

 

Outline: A residential development with all matters reserved except access following the demolition of a detached bungalow (87 Everton Road), involving the erection of up to 30 dwellings including an access road, landscaping and associated ancillary works.

 

Applicant:     Blakeney Estates Ltd

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/01424/OUT, an outline planning application for a residential development with all matters reserved except access following the demolition of a detached bungalow (87 Everton Road), involving the erection of up to 30 dwellings including an access road, landscaping and associated ancillary works on land to the west of Everton Road, Everton Road, Potton, SG19 2PD.

 

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

 

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Ms Tina Arnold-Winch, an objector, and Mr Richard Murdock, the agent for the applicant, under the public participation scheme.

 

In response to a Member’s query, the agent stated that discussions had taken place with a landowner regarding a possible alternative access to the site but no agreement had been reached.

 

A ward Member urged the Committee to refuse the application and referred to the following matters in support:

 

·         The stage of preparation of the emerging Local Plan which he felt was fairly advanced.

·         The extent to which there were unresolved objections to relevant policies.

·         With regard to the Council’s 5 year land supply the Council had, at 1 July, a 5.82 year land supply.

·         That the application site was outside the settlement envelope, would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and was therefore contrary to a number of Council policies including Policy DM4.

·         Approving an application on the outside edge of the development envelope would lead to further applications and creeping growth.

·         The developer’s reference to successful appeal decisions against the Council and how, in that context, the attempted application of Policy DM4 in the open countryside had been found to be ‘overly restrictive’.  The Member responded by referring to the outcome of two recent appeals in the Council’s favour which had included the role of settlement envelopes, the possible detrimental impact of the loss of undesignated land and the resulting conflict with adopted policies, including Policy DM4.

·         An ecological survey had not been possible as the site had already been cleared.  The Member stated that the land should be allowed to return to its natural state before a decision was made.

·         The site was unwanted in the Local Plan despite being submitted under the call for sites.  It was not taken forward because it was not considered suitable for development.

·         The application represented overdevelopment.  There were 830 dwellings (including those in the application before Members) under construction, approved, applied for or proposed which equated to a 40% increase in the size of the town.  That number was already beyond the identified figure of up to 500 new dwellings

in the Council’s 2011 settlement study.

·        Developers were struggling to sell the new homes already built in      Potton.

·         There would only be a single lane serving 30 homes and major parking issues already existed in the area, especially with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

At the conclusion of item 7 above Councillor A Zerny left the meeting

Additional documents:

At the conclusion of Item 7 above Councillor K Janes left the Chamber

Additional documents:

The Committee adjourned at 11.37 a.m. and reconvened at 11.45 a.m.

Additional documents:

68.

Planning Application No. CB/18/00875/FULL (Caddington) pdf icon PDF 160 KB

 

Address:       102 Markyate Road, Slip End, Luton, LU1 4BX

 

Proposed New Residential Retirement Care Village with Retirement Living, Assisted Living, High Dependency Care Units, Community Club House, Ancillary Retail Units and Conservatory on a former disused garden nursery and the back garden of 88 Markyate Road. Change of use from unused derelict Land and C3 back garden to C2 Residential Institution.

 

Applicant:     Black Shu Limited

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/00875/FULL for a proposed new residential retirement care village with retirement living, assisted living, high dependency care units, community club house, ancillary retail units and conservatory on a former disused garden nursery and the back garden of 88 Markyate Road.  Change of use from unused derelict land and C3 back garden to C2 residential institution at 102 Markyate Road, Slip End, Luton, LU1 4BX.

 

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 Mr Davesh Sharma, an objector, and a joint representation from Mr Simon Chapman and Mr Justin Wickersham, the agents for the applicant.

 

In response to a Member’s query the objector stated that he had formally objected to the proposed diversion of Footpath No. 4 to run behind 94-102 Markyate Road.

 

In response to a Member’s query an agent for the applicant explained the approach taken to arrive at his viability assessment for the project and the resulting non-provision of affordable housing.  He explained what he viewed as the difference in process from that adopted by the Council’s consultant in providing the independent assessment.  The Member explained in turn how the Council’s assessment, unlike that of the applicant, had been drawn up by following the guidance set out in the revised 2018 National Planning Policy Framework  and stressed that, as a result, there was a significant difference in the outcomes arrived at by the two parties.

 

In response to a query by the Chairman an agent set out the reasons for not providing the affordable housing on-site.

 

An agent responded to a Member’s queries regarding any discussions which had taken place following the agent’s receipt of the Council’s own viability assessment, the care home costs for the developer and the impact on viability.

 

In summary a ward Member commented on the following:

 

·         The application in the context of the adopted Neighbourhood Plan which had received substantial local support.

·         That the Neighbourhood Plan had focused on the provision of residential accommodation and the division between housing in general and accommodation for older people.  It had encouraged a variety of schemes to come forward specifically for older person accommodation.

·         The intention was that older person accommodation would reduce the need for other housing as older people could downsize locally and therefore free up existing family homes.

·         The support from Slip End Parish Council and the community in general.  Whilst there had been objections from those immediately affected, there had been clear support for the application as it would allow the older residents of Slip End, neighbouring villages and eventually Dunstable to move into purpose built accommodation.

·         The need to ensure the scheme’s financial viability.  He felt that the financial contribution from the applicant was acceptable and was in addition to the other benefits that would be forthcoming.

·         The presence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

At the conclusion of Item 12 above Councillors C Hegley and R Stay left the meeting

Additional documents:

The Committee adjourned at 1.12 p.m. and reconvened at 1.35 p.m. All Members, including Councillor Mrs Clark, were present

Additional documents:

69.

Planning Application No. CB/18/01001/FULL (Leighton Buzzard North) pdf icon PDF 338 KB

 

Address:       10 Copper Beech Way, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 3BD

 

Erection of one detached dwelling with parking and access.  Erection of detached garage to serve 10 Copper Beech Way.

 

Applicant:     Mr F Marshall

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/01001/FULL for the erection of one detached dwelling with parking and access and erection of a detached garage to serve 10 Copper Beach Way, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 3BD.

 

The Committee was aware that a previous application for a dwelling on this site had been refused by the Council and the resulting appeal was currently being considered by the Planning Inspectorate.

 

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

 

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

 

A ward Member, who had called in the application, commented on various issues including:

 

·         The application site lay in the Green Belt and very special circumstances were required to make the application acceptable.

·         The current application was for a smaller dwelling than in the previous application, though he queried if that was sufficient reason to justify approval in the Green Belt.

·         If the current application was approved would it mean that the previous application, now with the Planning Inspectorate, would almost certainly be approved and was the Committee therefore deciding two applications?

 

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

 

·         With regard to the previous application the Planning Inspectorate had only recently registered the appeal.  The appeal had been answered with a rebuttal statement setting out the opinion that there would be harm to the character and, as a result, openness due to the size of the proposed dwelling and the lack of landscaping.

·         The current application provided a significant reduction in building size, a lack of harm to openness and the result of the Green Belt Review (which had not been put forward as a Very Special Circumstance in support of the previous application) it was considered that, given the exceptional circumstances of the application site and the five purposes of the Green Belt, this area of land was considered weak in how it contributed to the Green Belt.  Those circumstances were not applicable elsewhere and so were felt to be exceptional.

·         The Inspector could chose to approve the previous application.  However, approving the current application would not mean the original application was also approved and the reasons for the Council’s refusal of the former were still held to be valid given the differences between the two. 

·         The ward Member stated that should the Committee approve the current application then, he felt, the Planning Inspector would be guided by this and approve the previous application.  The Chairman stated that Inspectors often stressed that each application was decided on its merits so it would be surprising if the Planning Inspector was influenced by the Committee’s decision.

·         Whilst the previous application was considered detrimental in size, massing, scale and lack of landscaping the proposed development had removed the planned built garage and reduced the dwelling by one storey.  It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

During consideration of Item 9 below Councillor B Spurr left the meeting

Additional documents:

70.

Planning Application No. CB/17/01525/FULL (Arlesey) pdf icon PDF 421 KB

 

Address:       74 Church Lane, Arlesey, SG15 6UX

 

Retrospective: Change of use of existing outbuilding to private gym use comprising 4 no. one-to-one personal training sessions (maximum one person and one hour per session).

 

Applicant:     Mr R Hall

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/01525/FULL, a retrospective application for a change of use of an existing outbuilding to private gym use comprising 4 no. one-to-one personal training sessions (maximum one person and one hour per session) at 74 Church Lane, Arlesey, SG15 6UX.

 

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

 

No representations were received by the Committee under the public participation scheme.

 

(Note:  At this point in the proceedings Councillor Dalgarno, as a ward Member, sat at the seat allocated to public speakers to address the meeting).

 

The ward Member stated that he knew the next door neighbours on one side of the applicant, that they had approached him with their concerns and had asked him to call the application in which he had done.  He commented on various issues including:

 

·         The detrimental impact on neighbours’ amenity in the past as a result of group exercises with loud music.

·         The parking issues which had arisen because of the visiting clientele.  There were local parking restrictions in place including a residents’ parking scheme nearby.

·         The failure to address the relevance of Policy LP HQ1: High Quality Development (Central Bedfordshire Submission Local Plan) mentioned in the officer’s report when the outbuilding was merely a shed.

·         There had been a lack of previous engagement by the applicant with his neighbours and the latter felt that the officers were being misled.

·         That the application represented an inappropriate change of use and he queried how any of the proposed conditions could be policed.

·         That, should the application be approved, a review of what was taking place at the site should be carried out to ensure the neighbours’ amenity was protected.

·         That unless the activity was self-contained and did not impact on local residents then the proposed use was inappropriate.

 

Clarification was sought from the ward Member regarding the action which could be undertaken should the planning conditions be breached.  The meeting noted various points including that various local residents had contacted the ward Member over the past year regarding the nuisance caused and that enforcement action had been instigated by the latter but had then ceased because the current planning application had been submitted.  The ward Member stressed that the applicant was operating a commercial business and it needed to be treated as such.

 

(Note: Councillor Dalgarno left the Council Chamber at this point 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:

 

·         The recommended conditions within the officer’s report for the control of noise and parking and how they met the concerns which had been expressed.

·         The possible use, by clients of the business, of a nearby public house car park when it was empty.

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

that Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

At the conclusion of Item 9 above Councillor I Dalgarno re-entered the Chamber

Additional documents:

71.

Planning Application No. CB/13/03433/OUT (Northill) pdf icon PDF 864 KB

 

Address:       Superstore, Bells Brook, Biggleswade, SG18 0NA

 

Outline: For B1, B2 and B8 units on existing Lorry Park site (utilising existing access) all matters reserved except access.

 

Applicant:     Denison Investments Ltd

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/13/03433/OUT, an outline application for B1, B2 and B8 units on an existing lorry park site (utilising existing access) with all matters reserved accept access at the Superstore, Bells Brook, Biggleswade, SG18 0NA.

 

(Note: At this point, and prior to considering this application, Councillor Mrs Clark declared a personal interest because she knew Mr Steven Smith (of Denison Investments Ltd) in his role as a developer.  She had worked with him on the delivery of the community building on the Home Farm site in Cranfield and the relationship was of a professional nature.

 

Also at this point the Chairman stated that he also knew Mr Smith by virtue of the positions he (the Chairman) had held over the years.  The Chairman had not discussed the application with him).

 

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.

 

No representations were received by the Committee under the public participation scheme.

 

The ward Member welcomed the proposed small business units and the associated employment opportunities.  However, he referred to the location of the site in Flood Plain 3 and queried whether the application would lead to any drainage issues being moved elsewhere.  He also referred to local highways issues and asked if the filter lane to the filing station to the south of the application site could be extended to also assist entry into the site. Last, he expressed the hope that the lighting on the site would not impact on traffic using the nearby A1.

 

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

 

·         The adoption of additional conditions relating to provision of a right turn filter lane and the use of LED lighting on the site.  The planning officer advised that neither he nor the highways officer felt an extended filter lane to be necessary.  However, he stated that there was no technical reason why conditions relating to it or LED lighting could not be imposed.

·         The planning officer felt that access to the stream would not be impeded by the development.

·         With regard to possible flooding it was noted that there was no objection to the application by the Internal Drainage Board, the Sustainable Urban Drainage team or the Environment Agency.  The possible ‘relocation’ of flooding risk elsewhere had been considered and the officers did not believe this would occur.

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

that Planning Application No. CB/13/03433/OUT relating to Superstore, Bells Brook, Biggleswade, SG18 0NA be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.

 

 

 

72.

Planning Application No. CB/18/01461/FULL (Cranfield & Marston Moretaine) pdf icon PDF 18 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/01461/FULL for the erection of 16 new lodges with associated parking and access, footpaths and landscaping at Center Parcs Woburn Forest Holiday Village, Fordfield Road, Millbrook, Bedford, MK45 2GZ.

 

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

 

No representations were made under the public participation scheme.

 

At the request of the Chairman the planning officer responded to the points raised by Steppingley Parish Council as follows:

 

·         Of the five objections received from Steppingley Parish Council the main objections related to proposed lodges 9 and 10, including the impact of the development on the footpath, light intrusion and the requirement for the demonstration of very special circumstances to enable development in the Green Belt.  With regard to the requirement for very special circumstances the planning officer stated that, because the application was regarded as infill development on previously developed land, it was considered appropriate development in the Green Belt in accordance with paragraph 145(g) of the National Planning Policy Framework.  As such, very special circumstances were not required.

 

In response to a query from a ward Member regarding the Parish Council’s comments the planning officer stated that, subject to suitable landscaping, he did not believe proposed lodges 9 and 10 would be visible from the existing footpath.  He also stated that the provision of a bund was beyond the scope of the current application.

 

The Chairman, also commenting as a ward Member, stated that as far as he was aware, the proposals accorded with the existing character of the site and he had no objection.

 

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

 

·         The requirement to replace any broad leaf trees lost by the development, the need to undertake all possible measures to protect those trees earmarked to be retained and the addition of wording to the proposed conditions so that the landscaping scheme included replacement tree planting.

·         The Parish Council’s policy of there being no street lighting in Steppingley.  The Committee noted that the application site did not lie within the Parish boundary.

·         The possibility of securing an additional financial contribution from the applicant towards possible projects. The planning officer advised that no projects had been identified by spending officers in the consultation process and the size of the application also meant a significant contribution was unlikely. The Chairman suggested that the applicant be requested to voluntarily ‘top up’ the existing contribution sum set out within the S106 Agreement.  The second planning officer stated that he would report back to the Chairman of the Committee, the Executive Member and ward Members, on the outcome of the negotiations.

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

1          that Planning Application No. CB/18/01461/FULL relating to Center Parcs Woburn Forest Holiday Village, Fordfield Road, Millbrook, Bedford, MK45 2GZ be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes;

 

2  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

73.

Late Sheet pdf icon PDF 109 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 11 September 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.

 

 

 

74.

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 10 October 2018 and the Site Inspections will be undertaken on 8 October 2018.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

NOTED

 

that the next meeting of the Development Management Committee will be held on 10 October 2018.

 

RESOLVED

 

that all Members and substitute Members along with the relevant ward representatives be invited to conduct the site inspections on 8 October 2018.