Address:       Land rear of 7 - 37 Barton Road, Gravenhurst, Bedford,

MK45 4JP

Variation of condition 14 attached to planning permission reference CB/15/04081/OUT dated 17 January 2017 so that landscaping on the south eastern boundary of the site is carried out in accordance with drawing number WHK20175 11E  (Southern Boundary Proposals).

Applicant:     The RonCon Trust

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/00442/VOC for the variation of condition 14 attached to planning permission reference CB/15/04081/OUT dated 17 January 2017 so that landscaping on the south eastern boundary of the site was carried out in accordance with drawing number WHK20175 11E (Southern Boundary Proposals) on land rear of 7-37 Barton Road, Gravenhurst, Bedford, MK45 4JP.

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

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

A Member sought clarification from the agent.  The Member stated that he had closely examined the trees (the subject of the application together with other landscape features) when on the Council’s site inspection and several appeared to have been dead for approximately ten years.  He asked the agent if the applicant could remove the trees regardless of their condition given they were not covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).  In response the agent referred to the planning officer’s introduction and to the arboriculture report submitted in support of the application which stated that the trees were not protected by any designation and could be removed at any time.

A second Member sought clarification as to whether the proposed layout of the trees lay within private gardens or outside them.  In response the agent explained that the layout was a Reserved Matter and would come forward with a Reserved Matters application.  The application before Members was for a variation to a condition attached to the existing outline planning permission.  There was an illustrative layout but that was not necessarily the layout that would be submitted under Reserved Matters.

A Member asked the agent to confirm that there was a provisional layout which placed some of the trees outside of the gardens and some inside them.  In response the agent stated that in terms of the current proposal the outline planning permission included a management plan which sought to protect the landscape features on the site.  With regard to the location of the proposed trees some were within gardens but that was not to be determined at this stage.

A Member asked if it would be possible to lay out the site in such a way that the trees would not be in private gardens.  The agent advised that the scheme had been considered so that it would be possible to retain the trees that the Council’s officers had considered to be of importance.  With regard to the trees on the south-eastern boundary he stated that options had been considered whereby they were protected or there could be a means of protecting them.  That was the key intention of the condition.  The Member felt her question had not been answered and repeated it.  The agent stated that in terms of the layout of the site and the original outline application the intent was that they would lie outside the public domain.  However, he was of the opinion that if the trees were placed in the public domain it would not be an efficient use of land on that site.

The ward Member acknowledged that none of the trees in the screening area had any individual importance and none were protected by a TPO.  She explained, however, that this was not the issue when condition 14 was originally imposed.  Whilst the site had been referred to as an undeveloped plot by the planning officer it was actually the remains of an old village apple orchard; 80% of which had already been destroyed.  The applicant was focused solely on the existing trees rather than the whole area which provided a landscape feature denoting the transition from a built environment to the open countryside.  She advised the meeting that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) included increased support for the protection of existing trees.

The ward Member then referred to the objections from the ecology officer and the green infrastructure officer to the removal of the natural screen which had been defined as a priority habitat, wildlife haven and a wilderness area with a rich diversity.  The applicant wanted to remove most of the larger trees and slightly extend the boundary area with new trees.  She referred to the officer’s report which stated that the surviving trees would then be incorporated into gardens and that residents could ignore, neglect or replace garden hedges with fences and cut down the surviving trees.  Whilst the planning officer felt that any loss would be outweighed by other material considerations these had not been defined.  The ward Member concluded by stating that the 20% of the orchard which remained was a link to the old village.  She referred to how the Committee had originally decided to retain the remainder of the orchard and how nothing had changed since that decision.  She asked that the Committee continue to preserve it.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         Whist acknowledging the history of the site and the removal of the trees composing 80% of the orchard the Committee had to consider what was before it.

·         Whilst the ecological impact had been referred to he reminded the Committee that the reasons for the original condition 14 were the retention of landscape features and to ensure an acceptable appearance of development.  No ecological reason had been attached.

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

·         A Member’s comment that the condition had been imposed at her request because of, in particular, concern that if the site was built out, the long distance views from the south to its elevated position, would present an unattractive, hard edged urbanisation of the landscape. 

·         The Member stated she had acknowledged that the trees were not in good condition but stressed that the belt of trees helped to soften the proposed development.  She stated that this point had been recognised by a number of officers who all supported the retention of the trees.  However, the developer was also within his rights to remove them all and if only a few were retained in residents’ back gardens they could also be removed.  On this basis she sought a compromise under which as many trees and hedgerows as were possible were retained outside of the back gardens to maximise the screening and ecological value.

·         A Member commented that from the bottom of the hill it was possible to see two sheds together with some of the orchard and some hedging further to the east of the development.  He added that if the Committee wished to create sanctuaries of environmental land then it was a separate issue.    He did not understand why the Committee was trying to protect the land as it did not form a buffer strip and was merely a piece of scrub land with dead trees which at some point would be removed.  Live trees might stay within residents’ gardens though none were protected by a TPO and none appeared to be prime specimens.  He stated that his only concern was that he felt fuller use could have been made of the land to help reduce the need to build dwellings on green land.

·         A Member referred to the planning officer’s statement in his report that all the trees would be dead within ten years.  The Member stated that he was unsure if the applicant could proceed with Reserved Matters while still having an unfulfilled condition in the Outline Permission though the applicant could cut down the trees.  Although the Council could respond with enforcement action, the trees would be gone and there would be little the Council could do.  He indicated that the Member who had originally requested the condition wished to see a reasonable buffer and that there would be a landscaping condition under Reserved Matters.  He added that the houses would be taller than both the sheds and trees so the latter would make no significant difference to the view from the valley or the site.

·         Discussion took place on the size of the replacement trees to be planted following a Member’s expression of concern that they might be removed by residents.

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

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/00442/VOC relating to land rear of 7-37 Barton Road, Gravenhurst, Bedford, MK45 4JP be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.