If any

The Chairman informed the Committee and the public that items 5 – 10 would be heard in the morning.  If these items had been completed prior to 12:15 then item 20 Luton Airport would be considered prior to lunch.

There would be a comfort break at a convenient time about 11:15 – 11:30.  

Item 11 would not be heard before 1.30pm at the earliest.

Speaking – due to the considerable interest in items 6 – 10, the Chairman agreed that where there are more than 1 speaking in a section then they would have 2 minutes each.

The Chairman reminded Councillors and members of the public to silence their mobile phones for the duration of the meeting.

Subject to declarable interests all Members of the Committee have the right to vote on all matters of business considered by the Committee.

Rule No. 13.5.5 of the Constitution states that Members do not vote or take part in the meeting’s discussions on a proposal unless they have been present to hear the entire debate, including the officer’s introduction to the matter.

The Chairman, under Part E3 paragraph 9.2 has a second or casting vote should there be equal numbers of votes for and against an item.  This provision makes it quite clear that the Chairman is entitled to vote on any item of business.  There is no restriction or limitation on how the second or casting vote should be exercised nor is there a requirement that the right be exercised at all.

Prior to consideration of item 9

The Chairman advised members that there had been certain allegations made against the Council on these applications both in the press and in open meetings.  FoE had accused Councillors of already deciding the applications and accusations that secret meetings had taken place.  The Chairman categorically stated that no such meetings had taken place and that this Committee had not decided the applications, indeed this was the first time that the majority of members had been involved.

The Chairman advised members that in November 2012 a separate presentation by both applicants to Officers and Local Ward Members occurred.  After the presentation Ward Members asked some questions but no discussions took place and those Ward Members who were members of the Development Management Committee did not become involved and did not form any opinions.  The members felt that as they were elected by residents of Leighton Buzzard to represent them it was vital that they attend in order to be up to date on the latest plans.

There were also allegations that local people would not know until today if they would speak.  FoE was informed on Thursday night that any person wishing to speak should register and that a final decision would be made this week.  The Chairman has never refused anyone to speak on a contentious application.  

There had also been suggestions that Development on the South side would not take place.  This was far from the truth; it was never going to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 323.

To approve as a correct record, the Minutes of the meetings of the Development Management Committee held on 12 December 2012 and 16 January 2013.

(previously circulated)

RESOLVED

that the Minutes of the meetings of the Development Management Committee held on the 12 December 2012 and 16 January 2013 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as correct records.

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

To consider the report of the Director of Sustainable Communities providing a monthly update of planning enforcement cases where action has been taken covering the North, South and Minerals and Waste.

RESOLVED

That the update on Planning Enforcement cases where formal action has been taken be noted.

In advance of consideration of the Planning Applications, the Committee received a Late Sheet advising of additional consultation / publicity responses, comments and proposed additional conditions.  A copy of the Late Sheet is available at the following link:

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/modgov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=631&MId=4083&Ver=4

The report examines the evidence behind the application to delete Maulden Footpath No. 28 under the legislation contained within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.  Members are asked to come to a view on whether the application should be approved or refused.

The Committee received and considered a report of the Head of Service for Transport, Strategy and Countryside Services.  The report set out evidence behind the application to delete Maulden Footpath No. 28 under the legislation contained within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. 

The report sought a decision on whether the application should be approved or refused. 

RESOLVED

That the Committee refused the application by Mr A Bowers to make an order under Section 53(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to delete Footpath No. 28 under Section 53(3)(c)(iii) of the Act because no new substantive and cogent evidence had been discovered which demonstrated on the balance of probability that a valid non-intention to dedicate existed during the period 1936 – 1956.

The report examines the application to extinguish Maulden Footpath No. 28 in light of evidence of recent use and the legislation contained within the Highways Act 1980.  Members are asked to come to a view on whether the application should be approved or refused.

The Committee received and considered a report of the Head of Service for Transport, Strategy and Countryside Services.  The report set out the evidence behind the application to extinguish Maulden Footpath No. 28 under Section 118 of the Highways Act 1980.    

The report sought a decision on whether the application should be approved or refused. 

RESOLVED

That the Committee:-

(a)               Approved the application by Mr A Bowers to make a Public Path Order under Section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 to extinguish Maulden Footpath No. 28 between points A-B on the grounds that the footpath is no longer needed.

(b)       Required the applicant Mr A Bowers to pay the costs associated with the carrying out of works to provide pedestrian refuges on the  nearby Maulden Bridleway No.24 to accommodate increased levels of pedestrian traffic.

The report examines the application to seek the stopping up of Maulden Footpath No. 28 by Magistrates’ Court order.  Members are asked to come to a view on whether the application should be approved or refused in light of evidence of recent use, the legislation contained within the Highways Act 1980, and the Council’s adopted policy on such applications.

The Committee received and considered a report of the Head of Service for Transport, Strategy and Countryside Services.  The report set out the history and policy and legal considerations behind the application requesting the Council to apply to the Magistrates Court for a court order to stop up Maulden Footpath No. 28 under Section 116 of the Highways Act 1980.    

The report sought a decision on whether the application should be approved or refused. 

RESOLVED

That the Committee:-

1.      Approve the application by Mr A Bowers for the Council to make an application under Section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 to the Magistrates’ Court for a stopping up order for Maulden Footpath No. 28 between points A-B, on the grounds that:-

(a)               the application meets the criteria in the Council’s Rights of Way Applications Policy for making an application to the Magistrates’ Court.

(b)        Bridleway No. 24 nearby is close enough to be used as an alternative route by those members of the public currently using the footpath.

(c)               As the bridleway has not undergone significant improvements to enable the Council to disregard the earlier decisions by independent Inspectors who concluded that the bridleway was not suitable alternative to the footpath, the applicant Mr A Bowers will be required to pay the costs associated with the carrying out of works to provide pedestrian refuges on the alternative route to accommodate increased levels of pedestrian traffic

Address :      Retail Park at Grovebury Road, Leighton Buzzard

                        Development of the site for retail warehousing development within Class A1 (retail) to comprise 5,575sqm with 2,090sqm mezzanine floorspace and 929sqm garden centre enclosure and a restaurant/café/public house of 372sqm within Class A1/A3/A4/A5 use.     

Applicant :    Claymore Group and CC Trading Ltd

RESOLVED

That Planning Application No. CB/12/02071/OUT relating to Retail Part at Grovebury Road, Leighton Buzzard be approved as set out in the schedule appended to these Minutes.

Address :      Unit 7, Grovebury Road, Leighton Buzzard

                        Outline Planning Permission: Proposed non food retail park of up to 10,775sqm (116,000sqft).  Gross retail floorspace, up to 600sqm (6,460sqft), storage up to 604sqm (6500sqft), pub/restaurant, up to 167sqm(1800sqft), drive thru restaurant, new vehicular access and associated highway works, associated car parking; hard and soft landscaping and associated infrastructure works. 

Applicant :    Barwood Developments Ltd & Invesvo P.I.T. Ltd

RESOLVED

That Planning Application No. CB/12/03290/OUT relating to Unit 7, Grovebury Road, Leighton Buzzard be delegated to the Head of Development Management to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the schedule appended to these Minutes.

Address :      Brickhill Farm Park Homes, Halfmoon Lane, Pepperstock, Luton

                        Retention of existing and creation of new mobile home plots to provide a total of 105 plots. 

Applicant :    Miss G McFarland

RESOLVED

That Planning Application No. CB/12/04310/FULL relating to Brickhill Farm Park Homes, Halfmoon Lane, Pepperstock, Luton be approved as set out in the schedule appended to these Minutes.

Address :      113 Camberton Road, Linslade, Leighton Buzzard

                        Single storey front extension and demolition of existing side brick boundary wall.  Erection of 1.8m fence to extend rear and side garden to enclose grassed amenity land. (Re-sub 12/3791).      

Applicant :    Mr & Mrs Silva

The Applicant withdrew the application prior to the Committee meeting being held.

Address :      37 Moor Lane, Maulden, Bedford

                        Retrospective approval for a garage extension to a dwelling.                

Applicant :    Mr Swan

RESOLVED

That Planning Application No. CB/12/03999/FULL relating to 37 Moor Lane, Maulden, Bedford be approved as set out in the schedule appended to these Minutes.

Address :      Oak Tree Farm, Potton Road, Biggleswade

                        Change of use of site and buildings from Light industrial / retail / store / showroom / workshop / restaurant to school.  External alterations including revised parking layout / landscaping / play areas and new fencing.  Subdivision of land to separate existing house.  New windows and doors.

Applicant :    Ermine Education Trust

RESOLVED

That Planning Application No. CB/12/04248/FULL relating to Oak Tree Farm, Potton Road, Biggleswade be delegated to the Head of Development Management to refuse the application on the grounds as set out in the schedule appended to these Minutes.

Prior to the vote being taken for the refusal of the application, Councillor N Aldis moved approval of the application.  The recommendation was seconded by Councillor K C Matthews.

A request for a recorded vote upon the decision of this planning application was made and voted upon.  Upon being put to the vote to approve the application, the following vote was recorded:-

Councillors:  P N Aldis, M Blair, K C Matthews, C Maudlin, T Nicols.  Voted in accordance with the proposal to approve the application.

Councillors: A R Bastable, R D Berry, A D Brown, Mrs C F Chapman MBE, I Dalgarno, Mrs R B Gammons, A Shadbolt, I Shingler and N Young.  Voted against the recommendation to approve the application.

The application was lost 5 for and 9 against.

Councillor N Young moved refusal of the recommendation.  The recommendation was seconded by Councillor R Berry.  The application was carried.

Address :      32 Astwick Road, Stotfold, Hitchin

                        Erection of 3 dwellings        

Applicant :    Mr T Saunders

RESOLVED

That following motions to approve and refuse the application fell, Planning Application No. CB/12/04272/FULL relating to 32 Astwick Road, Stotfold, Hitchin was deferred to allow a site visit to take place.

Address :      London Luton Airport, Airway Way, Luton

                        Other Authority Consultation: Proposed alterations to Airport Way / Airport Approach Road, infill extensions and alterations to terminal buildings, extensions to existing mid or long term car parks, new taxiway (Foxtrot), extensions to the existing taxiway (Alpha) and aircraft parking aprons (including 6 new strands) and a new multi-storey car park linked to terminal building.

Applicant :    Luton Borough Council

The Committee received and considered a report of the Director of Sustainable Communities.  The report summarised the proposals in the Planning Application submitted to Luton Borough Council, provided for submission of specialist responses from Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) Officers and to make comments on the proposals.   

The Major Applications Manager provided the Committee with an overview of the responses which had been received from a number of Officers.  The Committee considered the information and provided the following response to be forwarded to Luton Borough Council by the deadline for responses of 19 February 2013:-

1.            While new jobs are welcome, there is concern that the majority of these will not go to local residents and that neither Luton Airport nor Luton Borough Council have addressed this issue.

Without providing local jobs, the growth of Luton Airport generates a significant downside of traffic congestion, aircraft noise without the benefits of local jobs.

In fact a bigger issue of significantly exacerbating pressure on local housing through migration of new employees from outside of the local area into Central Bedfordshire.

Hence it is essential that employment be focussed in the local area.

·              Information request – assessment of where employees will come from

·              There should be a Local Employment Strategy which will detail how Luton Airport and Luton Borough Council will ensure the majority of jobs created will go to existing local residents.  This would include:-

o             Recruitment locally

o             Provision of apprenticeships

o             Training

o             Work with schools

o             Work with DWP/JCP and local back to work providers

o             This should include a transport strategy and associated investment to ensure Central Bedfordshire Council residents are able to access their jobs

o             Appointment and funding of a Local Employment Co-ordinator

2.            The proposals will create pressure on housing in Central Bedfordshire if new jobs are not for local people.  This housing pressure will negate the economic benefits which may be achieved from this development.

Luton Borough Council and Central Bedfordshire Council tenancy strategies are conflicting.  Luton Borough Council provides homes for life whilst Central Bedfordshire Council provides homes for five years.

3.            the application needs to provide further information on how night flights may increase or decrease;

3.            it is questioned why no proposal to share profits with those parishes under the flight path who will suffer noise from the aircrafts;

4.            there is concern regarding additional parking problems on roads in Slip End and Caddington;

5.            there should be monitors put under the flight path of aircrafts to monitor noise of landing aircraft.  A noise cap should also be placed on aircrafts up to a specified number of decibels;

6.            the roads around the airport are not considered suitable.  Newlands Road has been highlighted as a dangerous junction;

7.            it has been stated that some feel that this would not be an independent decision by Luton Borough Council;

8.            there should be triple or double glazing provided for residents affected by noise in the areas under and surrounding the flight paths.

RESOLVED  ...  view the full minutes text for item 338.

Address :      29 Steppingstones, Lancot Drive, Dunstable

                        Demolition of existing care facility and construction of new building with associated works.  Proposed ground floor 8No x studio bedrooms with ensuites and associated communal and staff facilities.  First floor assisted living 4No x two bedroom flats and 2No x one bedroom flats.           

Applicant :    Macintyre Housing Association

RESOLVED

That Planning Application No. CB/12/03575/FULL relating to 29 Steppingstones, Lancot Drive, Dunstable be approved as set out in the schedule appended to these Minutes.

Address :      Land to the Rear of 152 – 156, St Neots Road, Sandy

                        Erection of 4No. semi-detached dwellings and formation of associated access.

Applicant :    L&R Developments (Herts) Limited

RESOLVED

That Planning Application No. CB/12/04342/FULL relating to land to the Rear of 152 – 156, St Neots Road, Sandy  be approved as set out in the schedule appended to these Minutes.

Address :      16 Ickwell Green, Ickwell, Biggleswade

                        Single storey rear extension to garage.    

Applicant :    Mr Turner

RESOLVED

That Planning Application No. CB/12/04140/FULL relating to 16 Ickwell Green, Ickwell, Biggleswade be approved as set out in the schedule appended to the Minutes.

Address :      49 Common Road, Stotfold, Hitchin

                        Two storey side extension and single storey front extension.

Applicant :    Mr Nergaard

RESOLVED

That Planning Application No. CB/12/04247/FULL relating to 49 Common Road, Stotfold, Hitchin be approved as set out in the schedule appended to these Minutes.

In the event of any decision having been taken during the meeting requiring the inspection of a site or sites, the Committee is invited to appoint  Members to conduct the site inspection immediately preceding the next meeting of this Committee to be held on 27 March 2013 having regard to the guidelines contained in the Code of Conduct for Planning Procedures.

In the event of there being no decision to refer any site for inspection the Committee is nevertheless requested to make a contingency appointment in the event of any Member wishing to exercise his or her right to request a site inspection under the provisions of the Members Planning Code of Good Practice.

RESOLVED

That the following Members be appointed to conduct Site Inspections to be undertaken in advance of the next meeting of this Committee to be held on Monday 25 March 2013:-

Vice-Chairman (or his nominee)

Cllrs:  A D Brown (as substitute for the Chairman)

            P N Aldis

            A R Bastable

            D Bowater