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

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

5, 6, 7, 9, 8 and 10.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meetings of the Development Management Committee held on 12 September 2018 and

7 November 2018 (copies to follow).

RESOLVED

that the minutes of the meetings of the Development Management Committee held on 12 September 2018 and 7 November 2018 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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.

Address:       Land rear of 133 & 135 Station Road, Lower Stondon, Henlow, SG16 6JJ

Demolition of 133 & 135 Station Road, Lower Stondon and erection of 149 residential dwellings (including 3 custom built plots and 52 affordable housing units) with associated access, road, parking, LEAP and amenity space. Construction of surface water attenuation basin and associated pumping station and provision of 0.12ha of land for community facility.

Applicant:     DLA Town Planning Ltd

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/00181/FULL for the demolition of 133 & 135 Station Road, Lower Stondon and the erection of 149 residential dwellings (including 3 custom built plots and 52 affordable housing units) with associated access, road, parking, LEAP and amenity space.  Construction of surface water attenuation basin and associated pumping station and provision of 0.12ha of land for community facility on land rear of 133 & 135 Station Road, Lower Stondon, Henlow, SG16 6JJ.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses, an update to the report, the deletion of conditions and amended conditions.  The Committee noted that a condition regarding vision splays had been duplicated and so additional condition 29 on the Late Sheet should be deleted and the remaining additional conditions renumbered.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Stondon Parish Councillor Nigel Benson, Tony McDonnelly, an objector, and Emily Bishop, the agent for the applicant.  All three parties responded to Members’ requests for clarification.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         The Parish Council comments on the application being outside the settlement envelope and the alleged prematurity of the allocation had been dealt with in the officer report and, in part, by the agent’s response.

·         It was not considered a significant development in that it would prejudice the Local Plan so there were no grounds to refuse on grounds of prematurity.

·         With any outside of settlement application, consideration had to be given as to whether any benefits outweighed the lack of policy compliance.  The officer report outlined the benefits that did so specifically with landscape and character.

·         The application would impact on the local infrastructure but contributions were sought for and including the doctor’s surgery and to education facilities to ensure they were upgraded.

·         The proposed access arrangement off Station Road and the highway network had been assessed and were considered fully acceptable.

·         A cohesive approach had been considered in terms of the emerging allocations on either side of the application site and a link road through the site joined up with the latter to ensure ‘future proofing’.

·         The community would gain footpath connectivity.

·         The proportion of the costs for the land for the community hall had been calculated by an agreed leisure methodology and was considered proportionate for the size of the scheme and the award of land.

·         The Parish Council had been included in the S106 discussions on community gain whilst the S106 obligations for education and healthcare were formula based.

·         The pollution officer was aware of the additional kennel blocks on the Greyhound Stadium site to the east and had undertaken discussions with the applicant.  The pollution officer had removed his objection subject to noise mitigation measures, including an attenuation bund, being implemented.  As a result the application was considered acceptable.

The highways officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         The transport assessment was fairly robust.  The surrounding junctions, including the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

Address:       Loft Farm and west of Church Street, Langford, Biggleswade, SG18 9QA

Outline planning application for up to 95 dwellings and associated public open space, with all matters reserved except for access.

Applicant:     Rosconn Strategic Land

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/02373/OUT for up to 95 dwellings and associated public open space, with all matters reserved except for access at Loft Farm and west of Church Street, Langford, Biggleswade, SG18 9QA.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional/amended conditions/reasons as set out in the Late Sheet.  The planning officer advised that a delivery schedule had also been sought as part of the required S106 Agreement.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Langford Parish Councillor Gillian Clarke, Ms Tania Barr, an objector, and a joint representation from Mr Daniel Hatcher, the applicant and Mr Adam Davies, the applicant’s agent.  Parish Councillor Clarke and Mr Davies responded to a Members’ requests for clarification.

A ward Member made the following comments:

·         He recognised the national need for housing but there had been no mention of the need to supplement the Council’s own five year land supply.

·         The site had not been proposed to go forward under the emerging Local Plan, two other sites being felt more suitable despite their own access issues.

·         The agreed S106 contribution towards education provision was only at the expected level and was not beyond the norm.

·         The agreed contribution towards the NHS was to provide additional capacity in the local surgery and was no guarantee of an overall increase in the number of GPs for the practice.

·         There were sustainability issues in the village.  It was felt too dangerous for children to cycle to the Henlow Academy so they walked or were driven there.

·         The content of the proposed construction management plan was loose and required development.  He queried what the consequences were if the plan was not adhered to.

·         The development was outside the village settlement envelope.

·         Biggleswade was the nearest major town and at peak travel time there would be a significant number of persons from the proposed development driving into that town and finding nowhere to park given the issues that already existed there.

·         There were outstanding queries regarding the width of the proposed access route through Tithe Farm Close and an alternative should be found from Church Street though this would incur a cost for the applicant.

·         If the Committee was minded to approve the application he requested that the existing zebra crossing be upgraded to a Puffin signalled crossing before building work commenced because of the related increase in traffic and the use of the crossing by children going to/from school.

·         He asked that the Committee refuse the application subject to the provision of a better access.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         With regard to police concerns regarding the security of the development site the application was in Outline form and there was no detailed layout available.  Two access points were proposed, one vehicular and one pedestrian, which the officer considered acceptable.

·         The flood zone was in the main western part of the site, representing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

Address:       Land off Greenfield Road, Flitton, Bedford, MK45 5DR

Residential development of 24 dwellings with associated open space, landscaping and access off Greenfield Road.

Applicant:     GPS Estates Ltd

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/02484/FULL for a residential development of 24 dwellings with associated open space, landscaping and access off Greenfield Road, Flitton, Bedford, MK45 5DR.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional amended conditions/reasons and an update to the report.  Members were advised that the specified highways conditions were not to be found in the Late Sheet as had been stated but had actually been included in the body of the report.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Flitton and Greenfield Parish Councillor Gareth Ellis and the applicant’s agent, Ms Samantha Boyd.  Both parties responded to queries from Members.

As the ward Member, who had called in the application, was unable to attend another Member read out a statement on his behalf.  The ward Member raised a number of objections to the application including that Flitton was a small village with limited facilities and was thus unsuitable for this scale of development, that there was no adequate S106 provision for education and other key infrastructure under the application, and allowing both the proposed entrances onto the main road from the site raised safety concerns.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         The second access was an existing access and there were no objections from the highways officer to its provision.

·         Historically S106 contributions had not been sought from applications for the site which made it difficult for the Council to improve on that position.

·         The Appeal Statement for the site stated that no evidence had been put forward by the Council in support of local concerns that the school was already oversubscribed and that services would be placed under pressure.

·         The leisure contribution had, nonetheless, been renegotiated positively.

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

·         That the relevant condition and informatives would cover all issues relating to surface water, drainage and flood mitigation.  The SuDS team had indicated that it accepted the compliance condition (amended condition 2) as set out in the Late Sheet.

·         The inclusion of a condition to retain the existing four mature trees on the application site and protect them during construction works.

·         Disappointment that the Planning Inspector had not recognised the impact of the application on the historic environment, the reason why the Council had refused the Outline application, and the constraint on the Council’s freedom to respond to the Full application as a result of the Appeal decision.

·         The addition of a further condition regarding the entrance gates on the separate, smaller entrance to the three dwellings because, as the gates opened inward, should either, in the interests of safety, be set further back from the highway by a total of five meters to allow vehicles to pull off the road completely or be automatically controlled.

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

RESOLVED

1          that Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

Address:       55 Woburn Street, Ampthill, Bedford, MK45 2HX

Erection of two storey rear extension.

Applicant:    Ms Whitehead

The Committee had before it a report regarding the erection of a two storey rear extension at 55 Woburn Street, Ampthill, Bedford, MK45 2HX.

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

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from the applicant, Mrs Jennifer Whitehead.  The applicant responded to a request for clarification on the award of a Court Order to fund the provision of a bedroom and other personal space for her daughter due to the latter’s medical conditions.

(Note: Following comments by Members, and in accordance with paragraph 13.2 of Part 4G of the Constitution, the Chairman allowed the applicant’s agent to speak on the application).

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from the applicant’s agent, Mr Francis Caldwell.

The ward Member, who had called in the application, referred briefly to the information already provided by the applicant.  He then advised of the reasons why the applicant had bought the property she and her family occupied, including the need to be in close proximity to her daughter’s school in case of a medical emergency.  The ward Member explained the applicant’s aim was to provide a suitable type and standard of accommodation for her daughter given the latter’s need for constant care.  To this end the design of the extension was of a suitable style and size whilst leaving sufficient garden space for the daughter to enjoy.  The ward Member explained that the extension could not be sold as an individual dwelling as the site as a whole was Grade II Listed.  He explained how the application was compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), would not cause significant harm to the Conservation Area, be of benefit to the family as whole, enable the applicant to undertake the care and support her daughter required during periods of trauma and allow the daughter to experience sustainable independent living when possible.  The ward Member briefly outlined the reasons the NHS supported the application.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         The conservation officer had identified less than substantial harm (as defined in the NPPF) to the fabric and historical significance of the building arising from the application and so had raised an objection to it.

·         No public benefits had been identified to outweigh the level of harm that would be caused.

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

·         The Planning Policy Guidance support for the comments made by the applicant’s agent, although the Guidance had not been updated to reflect the latest NPPF.

·         That the Guidance stated that it was a matter of judgement for the decision taker as to whether a proposal would cause substantial harm (i.e. the level of harm above that claimed by the conservation officer) having regard to the circumstances of the case.

·         That the Committee’s site inspection had revealed that the application would not cause significant harm to the significance,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

Address:       55 Woburn Street, Ampthill, Bedford, MK45 2HX

Erection of two storey rear extension.

Applicant:    Ms Whitehead

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/02832/FULL for the erection of a two storey rear extension at 55 Woburn Street, Ampthill, Bedford, MK45 2HX.

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

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from Mr Francis Caldwell, the agent for the applicant.

A ward Member, who had called in the application, drew the Committee’s attention to how the design of the extension was in line with what the NHS considered to be appropriate accommodation for a disabled child, in an acceptable style, at an acceptable scale and linked to the existing Grade II listed building rather than being integrated into it.

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

·         Related issues dealt with under the Listed Building application (minute DM/18/107 above refers).

·         That the linking of the two buildings would prevent their sale as separate dwellings.

·         The absence of any objection to the application from the neighbours.

·         That the extension to the Grade II listed building at 49 Woburn Street was actually carried out in 2007 so significant weight should be given to this rather than as indicated in the officer report.

·         The existing room described as a third bedroom was so small as to be below the legal requirement for that use.

·         The latest planning guidance favoured extensions to older properties to be in a contrasting design to that of the original dwellings and not to join them but to link them.  The proposed extension was of a modern design which contrasted with the existing 18^th century listed building.

Note: At this point in the debate, and contrary to the officer recommendation, it was moved that the application be approved for the following reasons:

Greater weight should have been given to existing extensions to neighbouring listed buildings

There was no adverse impact on the amenity of the applicant’s neighbours or else they would have objected

The existing character and appearance of the neighbourhood

There was no harmful impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling or Ampthill Conservation Area so it did not, therefore, conflict with policies DM13 and CS15.

The motion was seconded.

In response to Members’ comments the planning officer advised that the possible sale of the proposed extension as a separate dwelling could be stopped by including a condition preventing its occupation on an individual basis.

On being put to the vote 10 Members voted to approve the application, 0 voted against approval and 2 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/18/02832/FULL relating to 55 Woburn Street, Ampthill, Bedford, MK45 2HX be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.

Address:       Secondary Aggregate Recycling Plant, Herons Farm,

Mancroft Road, Aley Green, Luton, LU1 4DR

Store materials at a height of 5 metres for a temporary period of two years as a variation to the height restriction attached to Lawful Development Certificate issued on 3^rd December 2010 (retrospective).

Applicant:    Mr Sayers

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/05518/MW for the storage of materials at a height of 5 metres for a temporary period of two years as a variation to the height restriction attached to the Lawful Development Certificate issued on 3 December 2010 at the Secondary Aggregate Recycling Plant, Herons Farm, Mancroft Road, Aley Green, Luton, LU1 4DR.

The Committee was aware that the reason for the application was to enable the storage yard to be upgraded through the provision of a concrete pad.  The proposed additional storage height would enable the applicant to continue to store a similar volume of material whilst the pad was being constructed.

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

No representations were made under the public participation scheme.

A ward Member for Caddington, who was also a member of the Committee, read out a statement on behalf of the other Member for that ward, who had called in the application but who had been unable to attend the meeting due to another commitment.  The former advised that Caddington Parish Council, which was not represented at the meeting because it had not been aware that the item was to be considered, concurred with the comments, concerns and suggestions within the statement.

However, and whilst sympathetic to the content of his colleague’s statement, the ward Member acknowledged that the Committee was restricted in its response to any issues arising from the application before Members and could not consider the wider operational impact of the site.

On being put to the vote 9 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 2 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/05518/MW relating to the Secondary Aggregate Recycling Plant, Herons Farm, Mancroft Road, Aley Green, Luton, LU1 4DR  be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.

To receive and note, prior to considering the planning applications contained in the schedules above, any additional information detailed in the Late Sheet to be circulated on 4 December 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 9 January 2019 and the Site Inspections will be undertaken on 7 January 2019.

NOTED

that the next meeting of the Development Management Committee will be held on 9 January 2019.

RESOLVED

that all Members and substitute Members, along with the relevant ward representatives, be invited to conduct the site inspections on 7 January 2019.