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:

Morning:  Items 8, 10, 9, 6, 11, 15.

Afternoon: 5, 13, 16, 7, 12, 14, 18, 17.

(Note the above order of business was subsequently changed by the Chairman).

To note that the minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 6 February 2019 will not be available to be signed as a correct record.

NOTED

that the minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 6 February 2019 were not yet available to be signed as a correct record.

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.

Address:       Oakridge, 13 Orchard Close, Upper Gravenhurst, Bedford,

MK45 4JF.

Outline Application: Redevelopment of site to provide 46 dwelling houses and 1 building with six self contained flats, retail unit and associated parking and roads. Resubmission of Application CB/17/01360/OUT dated13/07/17.

Applicant:    2MC Homes

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/04165/OUT, an outline application for the redevelopment of a site to provide 46 dwelling houses and one building with six self-contained flats, retail unit and associated parking and roads at Oakridge, 13 Orchard Close, Upper Gravenhurst, Bedford, MK45 4JF (resubmission of Application No. CB/17/01360/OUT dated 13 July 2017).

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

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Councillor Richard Brewer (representing Gravenhurst Parish Council), Elizabeth Lush, an objector, and Jeff Gillett, who spoke on behalf of the applicant.  Members sought clarification from all three speakers.

The ward Member commented that, given that time had passed since the dismissal of the planning appeal for the site, circumstances could and did change.  She referred to the NPPF, the Council’s design guide and the Local Plan and how they had identified the importance of a community’s sense of place, its local environment and its history, especially the continuity of this history.  She explained that Gravenhurst was one of the very few hill villages in Central Bedfordshire.

The ward Member stated that the planning inspector had conceded that there would be harm to the character of the village because of the urbanising effect into the open countryside of a proposed estate whose scale and density was out of character with the existing village.  The inspector had also queried the impact on, and restoration of, the affected green infrastructure.  However, he saw minor economic benefits as outweighing the harm.  The ward Member felt that the inspector had drawn the conclusion that a previous planning decision to allow 10 dwellings on a smaller site meant a larger development was also acceptable.  She argued that allowing a smaller development actually emphasised the need to preserve the remainder of the hillside from development.  The ward Member added that the village’s skyline, as it was approached from Lower Gravenhurst, was a key element of its history and geographical appearance.  The Committee had previously rejected a three storey house on the site because its height would impact on the church tower.  The Committee had also refused high roof lines because they impacted on the skyline yet the current application threatened to do exactly the same.  The ward Member stressed that the village’s sense of place and its individuality was under threat and once the open rural view had gone it would be permanently lost.

The ward Member turned to the of issue of traffic and access to the site through Orchard Close and how consideration in detail of this had been delayed until the submission of a reserved matters application.  She commented that the access had been described by an officer as one of ongoing concern and detrimental to highway safety.  She felt that the problem would remain because the existing buildings in Orchard Close gave rise to an insoluble  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.

Address:       Land At Former Church Of St Vincent, Tithe Farm Road, Houghton Regis (nearest postcode LU5 5JL).

Erection of 12 dwellings with associated access, parking, landscaping and amenity space.

Applicant:    Lime Properties Limited

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/02275/FULL for the erection of 12 dwellings with associated access, parking, landscaping and amenity space on land at the former Church of St Vincent, Tithe Farm Road, Houghton Regis.

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

(Note: At this point in the proceedings Councillor T Swain moved to the seating to the rear of that allocated to members of the Committee).

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Councillor Jimmy Carroll of Houghton Regis Town Council (which objected to the application) and Adam White, the agent for the applicant.  The Town Council representative responded to Members’ requests for clarification.

(Note: At this point in the proceedings Councillor T Swain, as a ward Member for this Item, moved to the public speaker’s point in order to address the Committee).

The ward Member expressed concern that the proposed, large three storey dwellings would block the view from those existing homes which overlooked the local play area and skate park.  He explained that drug trafficking took place in the area and that the Council had a moral and social obligation to ensure that the wellbeing of the children was not threatened by preventing the play area and skate park from being monitored.

The ward Member also queried the suitability of three storey dwellings on the site given that existing homes were all two storey dwellings.

In response to Members’ requests for clarification the ward Member stated that he believed the skate park was floodlit in the evening until approximately 10.00 p.m.

(Note: At this point in the proceedings Councillor T Swain left the Council Chamber and took no further part in the debate on this Item or in the vote thereon).

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

•      Although the proposed dwellings were three storeys in height, the third storey was within the roof space. 

•      The proposed dwellings were, therefore, only slightly higher than two storey homes and would be located between 30-60 meters away from the existing two storey homes so there would not be an overbearing impact.

•      The Houghton Regis North Strategic Allocation urban extension had received outline planning permission and would result in development taking place within the vicinity of the site and so formed part of the context for the planning application despite the former’s long build out period.

•      The nursing home which had been previously approved for the application site was for a privately run service and so could not be regarded as a community facility.

•      Consultation with the police architectural liaison officer would only take place on major applications hence the absence of any comment by that officer.

•      The skate park was floodlit but the MUGA, which was closer to the site, was not.

•      The windows in the property at Plot 1 allowed the overlooking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 143.

Address:       Leedon Service Station, Hockliffe Road, Leighton Buzzard,

LU7 3JU.

The construction of two blocks containing 10 No. flats, together with associated parking and landscaping.

Applicant:    W E Black Ltd

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/02600/FULL for the construction of two blocks containing 10 no. flats together with associated parking and landscaping at Leedon Service Station, Hockliffe Road, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 3JU.

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

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Jacki Banfield, an objector to the application, and William Macleod, the agent for the applicant.  Members sought clarification from the objector.

A ward Member (and Chairman of Leighton-Linslade Town Council’s Planning Committee) stated that she concurred with the observations of the Town Council (set out in the planning officer’s report) and the objector on the application.  She stated that whilst the Town Council would welcome the tidying up of the site the there was concern that the proposed development would be overbearing.  It was felt inappropriate to site a three storey block of flats so close to surrounding houses.

The ward Member reminded the meeting that an application for 18 flats on the site had been previously rejected.  The proposed blocks of flats would tower over nearby homes and would be highly visible from the path running alongside the Clipstone Brook.  These were not in keeping with the local area which was some distance from the town centre.  Whilst obscured glass was to be used on the side of the block (Block A) facing 41 Woodman Close there would be a loss of leylandii trees to the rear of the site meant that the garden of 41 Woodman Close would lack privacy.  The ward Member stated she was not convinced that the proposed small trees and shrubs would offer sufficient screening.

Turning to the parking and highways concerns, the ward Member stated that there were two spaces provided for each flat but no on-site visitors spaces, despite the site being on a main road (Hockliffe Road) with little on-street parking, and on-going calls for a residents’ car parking scheme to be introduced.  It was also less than twelve months since parking restrictions had been introduced further along Hockliffe Road because of poor parking and she was concerned that, if the application was approved, there would be a repeat of the traffic problems.  The proposed development on Hockliffe Road would be opposite the busy junction with Brook Street, the former being a main HGV route.  It was also felt that the access and egress from the site would present a danger to all road users and pedestrians.  The ward Member stated that it had been at least 20 years since the site had been used for a filling station and traffic levels in Hockliffe Road had significantly increased. 

Turning to the issue of flooding the ward Member stated that the officer report dismissed any concern regarding flooding despite part of the site laying in Flood Zone 3.  She advised that the land had laid vacant since  ...  view the full minutes text for item 144.

Address:       Harlington Station Yard, Station Road, Harlington

(nearest postcode LU5 6LD).

Reserved Matters following Outline Approval CB/14/02348/OUT Redevelopment up to 45 residential units with associated amenity space, landscaping and parking provision. Demolition of existing bungalow.

Applicant:     W E Black Ltd

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/01651/RM, a reserved matters application following Outline Approval CB/14/02348/OUT for the redevelopment of up to 45 residential units with associated amenity space, landscaping and parking provision and the demolition of the existing bungalow at Harlington Station Yard, Station Road, Harlington.

Members were aware that the application had originally been submitted for consideration to the Committee on 6 February 2019 but this had been deferred for one cycle (minute DM/18/130 refers).

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

(Note: Councillor Berry re-entered the Chamber during the officer’s introduction to this item.  Being unable to participate in the related discussion and decision, he left the Chamber).

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Parish Councillor Mary Walsh of Harlington Parish Council (which objected to the application) and the applicant’s agent, William Macleod.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         The plans included in the original, and approved, Outline application were indicative only and showed a potential layout for the site.  The applicants had subsequently altered this and, by doing so, had generated benefits by pulling the development away from the conservation area.  In addition the resulting openness facilitated views of the conservation area from Station Road.

·         The Parish Council had been consulted when the application was originally received and its concerns noted.

·         The existing surrounding homes were two storey houses and the proposed new dwellings were three storey flats.  At outline stage they were shown as relatively large blocks, two and a half storeys high.  The proposed increase in height to three stories was not considered detrimental to the wider character of the area.

·         To mitigate overlooking of the existing two storey dwellings, four balconies had been removed from Block B and replaced by Juliet balconies.  Block A would have privacy screens on the balconies closest to the properties in Park Leys.

·         A large band of trees separated the site from neighbouring properties, mostly those in Christian Close, Prudence Close and Pilgrims Close.

·         The development faced towards the flank elevations of the existing properties.  The windows in the elevations were mainly secondary or obscure glazed so the overlooking was not considered so detrimental as to justify refusal.

·         The number of affordable homes (five) was negotiated at outline stage.

A ward Member commented that the application site had been deserted for eight years, having been a transport site prior to that.  It was a brownfield site which met the necessary criteria for development and how development of such sites was preferable.  He was grateful that the applicant had rearranged the layout to accommodate the conservation area although, historically, large lorries had turned in and out on that land.  His only concern related to overlooking Park Leys and, in particular, Prudence Close but the offset distance at that point was significant and the relative landscape heights were more acceptable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 145.

Address:       Valley View, Hemel Hempstead Road, Dagnall, Berkhamsted, HP4 1QR

Variation of Condition: Conditions 3 & 5 of planning permission CB/13/03219/FULL.

Applicant:     Mrs Golby Webb & Family

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/03451/VOC which sought the variation of conditions 3 and 5 of Planning Permission CB/13/03219/FULL from a temporary consent to a permanent permission regarding development at the existing authorised residential caravan site at Valley View, Hemel Hempstead Road, Dagnall, Berkhamsted, HP4 1QR. 

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

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Parish Councillor Eddie Perry of Studham Parish Council (which objected to the application), Steve Humphreys, who objected to the application, and Joseph Jones, the agent for the applicants.  Members sought and received clarification from Mr Humphreys and Mr Jones.

A ward Member endorsed the comments expressed by the above objectors, mentioned his lengthy involvement in the site and stated that the Committee would not be granting permission for a permanent brick built dwelling on the site.  He explained his concerns regarding the related legislation which allowed permission to be granted for gypsy and traveller sites where settled community dwellings would not be permitted and that this was unfair.  The ward Member added that the Secretary of State would be considering the application if approved by the Committee and he would be asking the Secretary of State to uphold a previous decision regarding the site.  He believed that the previous Secretary of State had called in most, if not all, of the gypsy and traveller decisions made by local authorities because the sites lay in the Green Belt or rural areas where permission for permanent dwellings would not normally be granted.  The ward Member stated the application site before Members was in a highly sensitive area and therefore harmful to the Green Belt and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).  The ward Member stated that there was an argument that the unmet needs measure for gypsy and traveller pitches actually increased demand and every time the Council asked what the need was it increased.  He suggested that an extension to the existing temporary permission might be a more appropriate way forward.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         In 2016 the Secretary of State overruled the Planning Inspector’s recommendation that permanent consent should be granted.  However, the welfare of the applicant’s daughter, who was happily settled in the local school, carried weight.

·         There was much development around the application site including a new build development on previously developed ‘brownfield’ land.

·         The Planning Inspector had stated that the previous application was harmful to the area but not significantly so.  Nor was it isolated given the other developments around it.

·         The Very Special Circumstances required to justify the development were the wellbeing of the applicant’s child and family.

·         The extent of the harm to the openness had slightly changed since the Secretary of State’s decision.

·         The Secretary of State had given due weight to the impact on the AONB (the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 146.

Address:       Land opposite (south) of Ivy House, Lodge Road, Cranfield, Bedford, MK43 0BQ.

Outline: Erection of 10 dwelling houses.

Applicant:    c/o Kirkby & Diamond

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/02694/OUT  for outline permission for erection of 10 dwelling houses at Land opposite (south) of Ivy House, Lodge Road, Cranfield, Bedford, MK43 0BQ.

Before considering this item it was recommended this item be deferred for at least one cycle, given the need to further consider the impact on the non-designated heritage asset.

On being put to the vote for DEFERAL, 10 voted in favour, 0 against and 0 abstention.

RESOLVED

That the Planning Application No. CB/17/02694/OUT at Land opposite (south) of Ivy House, Lodge Road, Cranfield, Bedford, MK43 0BQ, be deferred at least one cycle.

Address:       Glebe House, 4 Station Road, Blunham, Bedford, MK44 3NZ.

Change of use: Conversion of redundant telephone exchange building for use as a hairdresser' salon (Use Class A1).

Applicant:    Mrs Clayton

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/04625/FULL for a change of use, conversion of redundant telephone exchange building for use as a hairdressers salon (Use Class A1) at Glebe House, 4 Station Road, Blunham, Bedfordshire, MK44 3NZ.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to representations from public speakers. There were no additions to this report in the Late Sheet.

The public speakers included a representation in support from Parish Councillor Nigel Aldis and a representation from the applicant in support from Michelle Clayton.

Committee Members discussed the following points:

•           Members heard from the applicant and the Parish Councillor that the business serves a popular local need for residents, in particular those who are unable to travel outside the village for these services.

•           It was noted that the business enables access to customers with mobility issues and as its by appointment only, always has ample parking available. The applicant reported she had never received a complaint from a neighbouring property. It was clarified that she lives in a neighbouring property and has support from the closest neighbour to the application site.

•           Members agreed as the business is in an existing building that this change of use would have no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.

•           Members agreed that the use as a salon was considered a community-based asset, especially as a provision for the elderly and are unable to travel into town. This was supported by the support of neighbours, the Parish Council and a petition.

•           Members agreed that there should not be an imposed boundary treatment condition as the current landscaping is acceptable.

•           The planning officer suggested a restriction to A1 use only with a restriction to operating hours as stated in the report. The applicant was agreeable to this.

•           Members agreed to move for approval against the officers original recommendation with the restriction of use and hours as set out in the report,

On being put to the vote for APPROVAL, 11 voted in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That the Planning Application No. CB/18/04625/FULL at Glebe House, 4 Station Road, Blunham, Bedfordshire, MK44 3NZ, be approved as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes.

Address:       Former Goods Transport Site, 7 Bedford Road and 1 and 2 Salford Road Brogborough (nearest postcode MK43 0XX).    

Site clearance and erection of a warehouse and distribution facility (Use Class B8) with ancillary offices, including new vehicular and pedestrian access, parking, internal access roads and service yard, external lighting, landscaping, infrastructure and associated works.

Applicant:     Prologis UK Limited

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/04119/FULL for a site clearance and erection of a warehouse and distribution facility (Use Class B8) with ancillary offices, including new vehicular and pedestrian access, parking, internal access roads and service yard, external lighting, landscaping, infrastructure and associated works at Former Goods Transport Site, 7 Bedford Road and 1 and 2 Salford Road, Brogborough (nearest postcode MK43 0XX).

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

The public speakers included a representation in objection from Parish Councillor Maria Spearing and a representation from the agents for the applicant in support from John Bowles and Oliver Bycroft.

Before considering this item, Councillor Clark made a declaration that she had met the developer Prologis to discuss issues and was present at a Parish Council meeting where the developer gave a presentation. It was noted that she had not expressed an opinion on their application and would be present for discussion and voting. Councillor Matthews had also attended the briefing and did not express an opinion on the application.

Committee Members discussed the following points:

•           The Parish Council raised concerns about light, noise and air pollution arising from the application. The planning officer responded that these issues have been assessed by the applicant’s professional consultants and those reports have been assessed by the Council’s pollution team who have not asked for anything else other than the conditions stated in the officer’s report.

•           Concerns over increased HGV movements were discussed, it was noted that the Highways Officer had stated that the increased movements would equate to 0.05% and that was not considered a severe impact.

•           It was noted that the application will provide improved gateway features to the village, including improved footways, cycle ways and a toucan crossing across Bedford Road at the junction with the A507 and Salford Road. Members also requested a zebra crossing be provided within Brogborough village and agreed that along with the proposed civilisation of the village gateway, signage could be added to direct HGVs to the correct way to enter and exit the site away from the village - of which the developer could contribute towards. A member reported there will be a HGV ban through the village and this could be additionally signed and would alleviate traffic concerns. When discussing the enforcement of the HGV ban, as well as a reporting service, it was suggested ANPR could be utilised.

•           A Member raised concern over the number of staff per square footage being very low and that it did not bring much employment to the area and that the building that the prospective tenant would leave could be left vacant. It was noted that the building being vacated already has an applicant interested.

•           A Ward member made a representation detailing concerns about the capacity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

Address:       Land between 21 to 39 Thorncote Road Northill, Biggleswade (nearest postcode SG18 9AQ).

Outline Application: development of land for up to 21 dwellings to include 2 No. Bungalows, all matters reserved except access.

Applicant:     Landscope Land and Property Ltd

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/04013/OUT an outline application for development of land for up to 21 dwellings to include 2no. Bungalows, all matters reserved except access at Land between 21 – 39 Thorncote Road, Northill, Biggleswade

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/additional comments and additional/amended conditions as set out in the Late Sheet as well as representations from public speakers.

The public speakers included a representation in objection from Parish Councillor Smith.

Committee Members discussed the following points:

•           Members noted a representation from Northill Parish Council in which concerns were raised about the density of the site being inappropriate for the rural location and the site was not identified in the neighbourhood plan. It was clarified that the neighbourhood plan had not yet been submitted and carries little weight.

•           Members heard a representation from the Ward Member. In response to concerns regarding space for refuse vehicles not been accommodated, the Highways officer reported that there was no need for a refuse vehicle turning head as a designated refuse collection area would need to be made.

•           The Ward Member raised concerns about the footpath as it is part of the Greensand Ridge. The Planning Officer noted there were conditions in the application that protected the rural feel of the pathway.

•           It was noted that the applicant originally applied for 10 dwellings and was advised to increase the site to 21 dwellings by the Planning Department. The Planning Officer reported that the applicant was given this advise to make more efficient use of the site as per NPPF guidance and to provide community benefit to the area, including affordable housing provision.

•           It was noted that the application site is beyond the settlement envelope but has been allocated within the emerging local plan.

•           Members agreed to move as set out with the additions of conditions set out in the late sheet.

On being put to the vote for APPROVAL, 7 voted in favour, 0 against and 2 abstention.

RESOLVED

That the Planning Application No. CB/18/04013/OUT at Land between 21 – 39 Thorncote Road, Northill, Biggleswade, be approved as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes.

Address:       Manor Farm, Watling Street, Kensworth, Dunstable, LU6 3QU.

Retrospective change of use from agriculture to temporary use as storage area for 5 years, with ancillary landscaping works and formation of hardstanding area using road planings (scalpings).

Applicant:     O'Hagan Transport Ltd

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/04383/FULL for Retrospective change of use from agriculture to temporary use as storage area for five years, with ancillary landscaping works and formation of hardstanding area using road planings (scalpings) at Manor Farm, Watling Street, Kensworth, Dunstable, LU6 3QU.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to representations from public speakers.

The public speakers included a representation in objection from T Gillingham and a representation from the agent for the applicant in support from S Andrews.

Committee Members discussed the following points:

•           Members noted concerns raised by the public speaker. It was reported that the site was being used to store building materials as well as historical artefacts. Members suggested that this could be addressed through conditions with permission restricted to historical artefacts in connection with HS2 only.

•           Members noted concerns relating to HGV movements, lighting and hours of use. It was reported that the Public Protection proposed hours of use and lighting conditions would bring an improvement to the current arrangements in place and Highways proposed conditions would offer an improvement of visibility splays and on site parking for HGVs.

•           Members noted the planning officers concerns as set out in the report in relation to inappropriate development within the greenbelt and an AONB. It was however felt that the site is not in open country side, is already well screened and will be utilising existing structures so will add limited harm to the greenbelt.

•           Members supported that this would be a temporary application and subject to a plan to return the site to its original state after five years.

•           Members moved to approve the application as the site was already industrialised therefore having a limited impact on the countryside and it would be supporting the rural economy.

•           Members moved the application subject to conditions that would limit the use of the site to historical HS2 artefacts only, subject to Highways conditions as proposed within the report and to be consistent with the planning permission already granted on the site and with the proposed Public Protection conditions to limit the site hours of use and lighting as set out within the report.

On being put to the vote for APPROVAL, 9 voted in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That the Planning Application No. CB/18/04383/FULL at Manor Farm, Watling Street, Kensworth, Dunstable, LU6 3QU, be approved as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes.

Address:       Maple House, Nicholls Close, Barton-le-Clay, Bedford,

MK45 4LL.

Variation of Condition 10 of planning permission CB/16/04198/FULL dated 08/11/16 (New two storey 4 bedroom dwelling with double garage to be built in garden of 67 Bedford Road. Access to be via Nicholls Close. Exterior finishes to be similar to neighbouring house in Nicholls Close.) - Garage to be removed and parking layout to be changed.

Applicant:    Gill-Hudson Homes Ltd

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/04368/VOC for variation of condition 10 of planning permission CB/16/04198/FULL dated 08/11/16 (new two storey 4 bedroom dwelling with double garage to be built in garden of 67 Bedford Road. Access to be via Nicholls Close. Exterior finishes to be similar to neighbouring house in Nicholls Close.) – Garage to be removed and parking layout changed at Maple House, Nicholls Close, Barton Le Clay, Bedford, MK45 4LL.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to representations from a public speaker.

A public speaker was a representation in support from the agent Mr L Butler.

Committee Members discussed the following points:

•           Members heard from the public speaker, the applicant reported that he had worked with Highways and Planning officers and there would still be ample parking without the garage.

•           Members heard a written representation, read by the Chair, from Cllr Shingler who called in the application to Committee. It was noted that the main reason for the call in was parking related; overspill parking was already causing friction within the village. Other issues were raised about further harm to the Barton-le-Clay Conservation Area with concerns that removal of the condition for the garage is due to another application on land adjacent to the site which could establish principle for development by allowing vehicle access to the land. A number of conditions were suggested.

•           A Member stated that the Committee can only consider the application as set out in front of them and consideration cannot be given to further proposed development. It was noted that the access and parking as laid out was adequate and the application was moved for approval as set out.

On being put to the vote for APPROVAL, 8 voted in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That the Planning Application No. CB/18/04368/VOC at Maple House, Nicholls Close, Barton Le Clay, Bedford, MK45 4LL, be approved as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes.

Address:       Land at Former Readshill Quarry, Back Street, Clophill

(nearest postcode MK45 4BY).

Outline: Residential development of up to 51 dwellings.

Applicant:    Hamlin Estates

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/16/05438/OUT for an outline application for a residential development of up to 51 dwellings at Land at former Readshill Quarry, Back Street, Clophill.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to a representation from a public speaker.

The public speaker included a representation in objection from E Thoulass.

Committee Members discussed the following points:

•           Members noted that this ‘major’ outline planning application for up to 51 residential units was subject to an appeal against non-determination. The appeal was due to be determined by written representations at a date yet to be determined. The application was therefore no longer before Central Bedfordshire Council for determination. However, under paragraph 4.4.53 of Part 3E of the Central Bedfordshire Constitution, the non-determination of a ‘major’ application needs to be reported to Development Management Committee for a resolution.

•           The public speaker, a resident of Clophill, raised multiple objections to the application. She noted that the application is a resubmission of an application on the site that was refused at appeal in 2017. Reasons given for this refusal were noted as significant harm to the appearance and character of the area and the benefits did not outweigh the significant and demonstrate harm.

•           It was noted that the village suffers from congestion at busy times in many areas, especially the high-street and Clophill roundabout.

•           A Ward Member supported the officers reason for objections and noted that there were 391 objections from local residents to the application. It was also noted that the access would not be acceptable to the residents or ward members although approved by Highways and not objected to by the Planning Inspector.

•           A Member noted that the application was remote to the community and would not be able to link into the current population in the area. He also shared the Ward Members concerns about the access.

•           Members discussed the inspectors report and asked the Planning officer to add the wording ‘significant harm’ to the refusal to mirror that in the inspectors report.

•           Members agreed to ratify and agree the recommendation of refusal with the additions of the above wording, the resolution of which will therefore form the basis of the grounds the Council will defend the appeal.

On being put to the vote for ratification of REFUSAL, 9 voted in favour, 0 against and 0 abstention.

RESOLVED

That the Planning Application No. CB/16/05438/OUT at Land at former Readshill Quarry, Back Street, Clophill be refused as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes.

Address:       Central Bedfordshire Council Car Park, Station Approach, Steppingley Road, Flitwick, MK45 1AJ.

Planning Permission sought to continue the use of the land for a car park for 293 car park spaces.

Applicant:     Central Bedfordshire Council

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/19/00182/REG3 for continuation of the use of the land for a car park for 293 car park spaces at Central Bedfordshire Council Car Park, Station Approach, Steppingley Road, Flitwick, MK45 1AJ.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses as set out in the Late Sheet. There were no representations from public speakers.

Committee Members discussed the following points:

•           Members discussed the application and asked for an informative to the applicant to be added to clear up the car park railings and building rubble with consideration to resurfacing the car park which is in a poor state of repair. It was noted that this was in progress and no informative was required.

•           Members moved the application for approval as set out.

On being put to the vote for APPROVAL, 9 voted in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That the Planning Application No. CB/19/00182/REG3 at Central Bedfordshire Council Car Park, Station Approach, Steppingley Road, Flitwick, MK45 1AJ, be approved as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes.

Address:       The Limes, 85 High Street, Henlow, SG16 6AB.

Application for Outline Planning for the erection of 3 dwelling houses and associated works, all matters reserved except access.

Applicant:     Mrs Wilkinson

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/02240/OUT, an outline application for the erection of three dwelling houses and associated works, all matters reserved except access at The Limes, 85 High Street, Henlow, SG16 6AB.

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

There were no public representations.

Despite the withdrawal of objections by the ward Member who had called-in the application and a fellow ward Member, a third ward Member expressed concerns on the following issues:

·         The change to the environment for the residents of the Limes Care Home, the application site lying within the grounds of the Home, would lead to a substantial loss of amenity for its residents.

·         The impact on the High Street and the loss of parking due to the installation of a new access.

·         The loss of the bin store due to the new access and the need to relocate the former within the grounds of the Home.

·         The impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties by the proposed, substantial, buildings; the impact being overbearing specifically to the north of the site though less so to the south due to the distance involved.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         This was an outline application and the dwellings and layout were indicative only.  The only matters for determination were the access and the principle of the development.

·         With regard to car parking recommended condition 11 required a reserved matters application to include vehicle parking to serve The Limes to the Council’s standards.

·         The access to the site was wide enough to accommodate parking along the access to replace the parking for The Limes that would be lost.

·         A replacement refuse collection point would be located at the site frontage.

·         The impact of the development could therefore be mitigated at the reserved matters stage.

·         The rear aspect of the site fell within an Important Countryside Gap as defined in Saved Policy CS21 from the Mid Bedfordshire Local Plan.  The Policy test was whether actual physical or visual coalescence would arise as a result of the development.  The application site was visually separate from the adjacent open countryside and the officer view was that it would not promote visual or physical coalescence between Henlow and Clifton.

·         There was an error in the report in paragraph 1.5.  The reference in the third sentence to ‘Clifton as a minor service centre’ should be deleted and replaced by ‘Henlow as a large village’.

·         The original application had been for four dwellings which would have left no amenity space for the residents of The Limes.  The subsequent reduction to three dwellings meant there was sufficient amenity space on the indicative plan to meet the Council’s guidance on space standards.                                                                            

Various Members continued to raise concerns regarding the loss of amenity space, including the loss of the carp pond, which it was felt provided therapeutic value for residents of The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

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 5 March 2019.

In advance of consideration of the planning applications attached to the agenda the Committee received a Late Sheet advising 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 24 April 2019 and the Site Inspections will be undertaken on 23 April 2019.

NOTED

that the next meeting of the Development Management Committee will be held on 3 April 2019.

RESOLVED

that all Members and substitute Members, along with the relevant ward representatives, be invited to conduct the site inspections on 23 April 2019.