Address:       Land at Taylors Road, opposite Aspen Gardens, Stotfold, Hitchin, SG5 4AX

Demolition of existing industrial units and development of 32 residential dwellings (including 12 affordable homes), vehicular access, pedestrian links, car parking, drainage, public open space and associated works.

Applicant:     Taylor Wimpey North Thames

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/05913/FULL for the demolition of existing industrial units and the development of 32 residential dwellings (including 12 affordable homes), vehicular access, pedestrian links, car parking, drainage, public open space and associated works on land at Taylors Road, opposite Aspen Gardens, Stotfold, Hitchin, SG5 4AX.

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

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Stotfold Town Council and the agent for the applicant under the public participation scheme.

A Member sought clarification from the Stotfold Town Council representative on sustainability in terms of employment; the Town Council having objected to the loss of the site as existing employment land.  The Member also queried whether Stotfold had a significant level of unemployment.  The Town Council representative replied that there was some unemployment but it was not at a significant level.  Another Member referred to the Town Council representative disputing the number of traffic movements and queried on what basis the Town Council had increased them to a level it felt was more appropriate.  The Town Council representative stated that the increase had been based on Central Bedfordshire Council’s own car parking policy, regarding the number of cars per dwelling, and observing the extent of car use and level of traffic movements outside the schools in Stotfold.  The Town Council representative added that at a recent public enquiry for a site in Stotfold he had asked the developers if they assumed any car movements took place within the walking and cycling areas and they had stated that they did not, hence the extremely low level of estimated vehicle movements stated in the report.

A Member commented that the Town Council’s assumption that there would be at least 50 vehicle movements in the morning and in the evening was based on approximately two cars per household travelling at the same time and in the same direction.  He queried whether these travel times and directions could actually vary from this assumption.  The Member also asked if the Town Council had employed a traffic engineer to establish the above or whether it was based on supposition alone.  In response the Town Council representative stated that it was based on experience and local knowledge.  He referred to the issues relating to local road junctions.  He stated that the figures were based on observations and the details had been discussed by the Town Council.  A traffic engineer had not been employed to carry out a survey.

A Member stated that the latest figures revealed that of twelve thousand residents in Stotfold, 70 were claiming job seekers allowance.  The unemployment rate for the town stood at 4.2% whilst the national average rate stood at 9%.  He stated that, with regard to employment sustainability, there was an existing high level of employment and job availability in Stotfold and so did not regard this as a valid reason for objection.

A Member sought clarification from the applicant’s agent.  The Member referred to one of the Town Council’s objections to the application being that the proposed affordable housing was not ‘pepper potted’ throughout the development.  He also referred to the agent having referred to the affordable housing being ‘clustered’ in line with Central Bedfordshire Council’s policy when both the Council’s policy and that of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was that dwellings should be tenure blind.  He felt it was difficult to achieve this when the affordable housing was all placed in one location.  In response the agent explained how the proposed 12 affordable homes were split within the site in two clusters of 10 and 2.  He assured the Committee that the dwellings were tenure blind and that their design mix and location would not be unacceptable to the Council.

The Member stressed his opposition to the clustering of affordable housing and stated that he would strongly prefer to see such dwellings distributed throughout the estate.  He acknowledged that registered providers preferred affordable housing units to be located together but he felt that this was a policy which needed to be changed.  He therefore asked that the distribution of affordable homes be taken into account, if not with the application before Members, then with regard to future applications.  The agent assured the meeting that, as part of the s106 negotiations his client would need to partner with a registered provider and this matter would be discussed with the provider.

The Chairman stated that on very large developments the Council sought the dispersal of affordable homes and that clusters should be of no more than 10 units.  On relatively small developments, such as the one before Members, this approach gave rise to difficulties.  In view of the agent’s comments he hoped that the registered provider would take the views expressed into account.

A ward Member referred to Astwick Road, which led up to The Green and which he described as dangerous, and how residents and Town Councillors had complained about the road’s safety on previous occasions.  However, despite the application before Members representing the fourth opportunity for highways officers to propose remedial measures, they had not done so.  Instead they appeared content overall and had recommended only minor improvements to the entrance to the site.   The ward Member expressed disappointment that no plan had been submitted to improve the road’s safety.

The ward Member next referred to local schools.  He stated that the school data was from 2016 and he expressed concern that by the time the dwellings were built the data would be three years old and it was impossible to state what the need for school places would be.  He asked if the education admissions officer was aware of the site and what the impact of the proposed development would be.

Last, the ward Member referred to the Transport Statement and the reference to a nearby café which, he said, did not exist.  He used this as an example of how the information supplied could be out of date and inaccurate.

In response the Executive Member for Education and Skills, who was also a ward Member, stated that, with regard to school spaces, this was a problem with all developments.  Uncertainty existed regarding when the dwellings would be built, when they would be occupied and the type of demand generated.  He added that this was a challenge experienced by all education authorities faced by such planning applications.  The Council had, therefore, to estimate future demand to the best of its ability.  The Executive/ward Member stated that he was aware that larger HGVs were not suited for accessing this location by using the Astwick Road.  However, he felt that, on balance, he was unable to object to the application.  Nonetheless, he asked that the Committee be aware that, despite the success the Council had enjoyed in creating employment locally in nearby Biggleswade there had been a cumulative loss of employment land in Stotfold.  Whilst acknowledging that the employment land under consideration was not in the best location given the town’s development he made clear that this was the last occasion that he wished to see such employment land lost.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         With regard to the sustainability of Stotfold, Policy CS1 referred to Stotfold as a minor service centre and so the town was considered sustainable.  This was based on the Council’s own data and not that supplied by the applicant.

·         The education officer was comfortable that the demand for places generated by the application, and by those other local applications currently under appeal, could be met subject to contributions being forthcoming from s106 Agreements to fund extensions or alterations to the existing schools.

·         Reference to the loss of employment land had been covered in the officer’s report, a marketing strategy had been supplied by the applicant which covered a 4 year period, there were safeguarded employment areas within Stotfold and the Council’s recent Economic Market Assessment and Employment Land Review Studies had confirmed that there was sufficient existing supply of sites to meet the local business growth and employment generation for Stotfold so it was not possible to defend the retention of the site for employment purposes.

·         With regard to the claim that there was no public transport, and so the development was unsustainable, the planning officer stated that she was unable to immediately confirm the location of local bus stops but advised that there was an acceptable level of public transport to the site and to Stotfold as a whole.  She reiterated that Stotfold was designated as a minor service area and as such was regarded as sustainable.

·         The suggestion that as there would be a loss of employment land in Stotfold there should be s106 contributions from developers in the future.  The planning officer explained that, in order to obtain such contributions, it was necessary for them to meet the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) tests or tests reasonably related to the development.  She was of the opinion that it would be unreasonable to include any s106 contributions towards an offset of employment.

The highways officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         With regard to safety concerns relating to Astwick Road he reminded the meeting that the roads local to the site would have previously experienced traffic movements related to the industrial use.   As a result of the application site’s change of use there would be a reduction in the number of large HGV movements to and from the site which was welcome in highways safety terms.

·         With regard to traffic generation the site had been assessed using a nationally recognised database which showed that, overall, the residential use of the site would result in a lower movement figure than that experienced under the existing use.

The Committee considered the application.  A Member commented that objectors to the method by which highways movements were arrived at should pursue this at a national level given that this matter was calculated on a model formulaic basis.  He then advised the Committee of the substantial difference in value between commercial and residential development.  The Member roughly estimated that, should the Stotfold site be redeveloped on a modern basis for commercial use, it would be worth only approximately one third of the value than if the site were developed for residential use.  In view of such a major difference in value, commercial land would be used for residential development.  Further, he doubted that it was possible to influence this issue due to the national method by which such commercial values were arrived at.

The Member also commented on difficulties which would arise should the site be employed for B1/B2 (industrial) uses given that it was located within a residential area.  He stated that he would expect it to operate for 12-14 hours per day, in order to extract the value from such a site, with the working day starting at 7.00 a.m. and finishing at 7.00 p.m. and with an hour either side to allow for vehicle deliveries and collections.  Noise and disturbance would be generated throughout this period to the detriment of nearby residents.  He commented that the decision to allow housing to have been built around industrial sites should not, perhaps, have been made but it had.  He also stated that he understood why the site, as with other such sites, had to be used for residential development.    People expected a far higher quality working environment and this would require the redevelopment of obsolete industrial sites to make them suitable in this respect.  Given the difference in value between commercial and residential it was inevitable that the sites would be used for residential developments.  The Member stated that he would prefer to see replacement industrial units on open land and indicated his support for the application.

A Member confirmed that highways movements were calculated against a national formula and, unless town and parish councils employed an expert to challenge the figures supplied, the Committee had to accept them.  The Member then referred to the forthcoming release of the revised NPPF for consultation on 5 March and that he was of the opinion that the document would require planning in principle to be granted to brownfield sites.  This would not remove the need to examine whether it represented an appropriate employment use or whether jobs would be lost as a result.  He reminded Members that the Committee had looked on many occasions, and particularly in Leighton Buzzard, at the number of jobs that could be lost if the premises concerned was a functioning commercial unit.  The Member added that the commercial site which was the subject of the application employed only four people in an outdated and inappropriate factory unit.  Further, the developers had satisfied officers that the site could not be rented commercially, that the area enjoyed one of the lowest unemployment rates in the UK and that the emerging Local Plan had allocated the appropriate amount of employment land.  The B1/B2 uses were not appropriate for the site’s location and the view provided by the industrial units was unattractive.  He then indicated his support for the application.

The Chairman reminded the meeting that little weight at this stage could be awarded to the emerging Local Plan.

A Member expressed concern regarding parking on the site in the form of triple tandem parking at some 4-5 bedroom dwellings.  In particular he referred to the proposed displacement parking on the estate roads.  He commented that people not using their allocated parking but parking on the estate roads instead would, based on experience, lead to the estate ‘not working’.  A policy allowing this was, therefore, a retrograde step and he asked if it would be possible to make better arrangements without making unallocated spaces part of the scheme.

Following queries by the Chairman the planning officer explained that the triple tandem parking only existed where garages were also proposed.  The presence of a garage, which formed one of the three parking spaces, required the provision of a means to access to the back garden.  With regard to displacement parking, this could be accommodated by a layby.  The highways officer added that the proposed public block paved areas in the development, and which incorporated both roads and pedestrian footways, would be shared use and visitor parking could be accommodated on them.

Having received an explanation with regard to the reason and layout of triple space parking which provided, in effect, driveways to the properties concerned, the Member welcomed their provision.  However, he expressed concern regarding the proposed shared use for parking.  In response, the Chairman stated that, in his experience, such shared use spaces worked quite well.

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

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/05913/FULL relating to land at Taylors Road, opposite Aspen Gardens, Stotfold, Hitchin, SG5 4AX be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.