Address:       Puddlehill (Former All Saints Vicarage), Bedford Road, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, LU5 5DJ

Refurbishment and extension of existing detached property (the former Vicarage) to provide accommodation in the form of 5 nos. individual bedrooms in the original house and 8 nos. studios in the new extension, including ancillary spaces such as office, laundry, shower rooms, communal areas and parking in order to provide supported accommodation and service hub for the vulnerable members of our communities.

Applicant:     CBC Housing Directorate

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application CB/17/02942/REG3 for the refurbishment and extension of an existing detached property (the former Vicarage) to provide accommodation in the form of 5 nos. individual bedrooms in the original house and 8 nos. studios in the new extension, including ancillary spaces such as office, laundry, shower rooms, communal areas and parking in order to provide supported accommodation and a service hub for vulnerable members of the community at Puddlehill (formerly All Saints Vicarage), Bedford Road, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, LU5 5DJ.

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

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

A ward Member advised that local residents had asked him to speak on their behalf.  He stated that he did not believe the objections from residents next to the former Vicarage had been given due consideration and commented that they were having another Central Bedfordshire Council home for homeless people placed close to their homes mindful that Bedford Court (Central Bedfordshire Council’s temporary accommodation scheme) was also located nearby.  He commented that Houghton Regis appeared to have more homeless person accommodation than any other town in Central Bedfordshire before stating that local residents had asked that, if the development was to proceed then a less dangerous and intrusive entrance should be found or the proposed entrance redesigned.  They had suggested that the entrance be placed nearer to, or in, Bedford Court.  The ward Member also referred to the reference by Houghton Regis Town Council to road safety issues relating to entering and leaving the site.  He stated that the entrance to the former Vicarage was meant for occasional vehicle use and not for access and parking for up to 19 vehicles.  He added that Bedford Road was a busy road with poor visibility on a semi-blind bend.  In addition the layby near the site was often used by heavy goods vehicles parked on a long term basis which blocked the view north to the entrance, there was a nearby footpath linking two primary schools and the traffic levels were due to increase as a result of two major developments which would feed onto Bedford Road.  He therefore asked that the entrance to the site be relocated to a safer location possibly in or nearer to Bedford Court.

A second ward Member commented that as the Council was landowner, applicant and planning authority it was important that there was maximum transparency and a commitment to meaningful engagement with local residents.  She believed the Council had set an example of good practice with the application.   The engagement with local residents at the pre-application stage was welcomed on the basis that it was better to have difficult conversations at the beginning of the process then later.  The Member praised the design and access statement and then requested that consideration to be given to the hours of construction, site security and controlling vehicle access to the site given the proximity of primary schools and local residents.  She concluded by expressing her full support for the proposed type of accommodation for young people and the benefits which would arise for them.

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

·         The conditioning of a construction management plan and the planning officer’s comments that, although there were nearby residents this was not a major development, and the control of the hours of construction could not be justified.

·         The Chairman’s reference to the applicant having considered the use of the existing entrance to Bedford Court and the reasons given as to why this could not be implemented.

·         The highways officer’s comment that the he did not view the forecast increase in traffic trips to 20 as being significant and that the proposed widening of the access to the former Vicarage and the positioning of the gates would prevent a vehicle entering the site from obstructing the footpath.  Further, the accident records had revealed only three local accidents within the last five years; two in 2012 and one in 2013.  Based on these findings he felt the application to be acceptable.

·         The Chairman’s comment that the road was more heavily used in the past prior to the opening of the bypass and accidents had occurred despite the slower speeds.  However, since the opening of the bypass traffic levels had reduced, speed had increased but no accidents had occurred.  In response the highways officer stated that prior to the bypass opening the road had still been free flowing.  He added that there was no significant evidence that an accident problem existed.  Further, the increase in traffic levels arising from the application was not significant and did not warrant the taking of special measures.

·         The highways officer statement that he had not considered the moving of the entrance because he did not feel it necessary.  He was of the opinion that relocating the entrance would make no difference with regard to road safety.  The visibility requirement could be achieved and he had not observed heavy goods vehicles parked in the layby.  If there was an issue it could be dealt with by a Traffic Regulation Order preventing such parking overnight.

·         A Member’s comments that he had visited the area with ward Members and had found that any traffic issues were predominantly at the bottom of the hill where remedial works were planned.  Whilst acknowledging that speed had increased since the opining of the bypass he was supportive of the proposal and agreed with the officer assessment.

(Note:  At this point in the proceedings Councillor Swain stated that, in view of the proximity of his home to the proposed development, he would take no part in the debate or vote on this item).

On being put to the vote 9 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/02942/REG3 relating to Puddlehill (former All Saints Vicarage), Bedford Road, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, LU5 5DJ be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.