Address:       Pinehurst, 17A Ivel Road, Shefford, SG17 5LB

Outline application for residential development comprising 31 no 2, 3, 4 & 5 bedroom houses, and 6 no 1 & 2 bedroom apartments (37 no total dwellings) following demolition of existing single dwelling with new access onto Ivel Road and reconfigured parking for existing office.

Applicant:     BBR Architects

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/02615/OUT, an outline application for a residential development comprising 31 no 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom houses, and 6 no 1 and 2 bedroom apartments (37 no total dwellings) following demolition of existing single dwelling with new access onto Ivel Road and reconfigured parking for existing office at Pinehurst, 17A Ivel Road, Shefford, SG17 5LB.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses, additional comments and additional/amended conditions as set out in the Late Sheet.  The Committee noted that a typographical error had occurred and the reference to ‘Stotfold Town Memorial Association’ should be amended to read ‘Shefford Town Memorial Association’.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Shefford Town Council under the public participation scheme.

A Member sought clarification from the Town Council representative regarding the 250 vehicle movements per day which the latter had suggested would arise from the development.  The Town Council representative informed the meeting that the number was based on guidance found on a website which advised town and parish councils on this issue.  The Member suggested that the link to the website be provided to the highways officer for consideration given the different outcomes that had been arrived at by the two parties.

A ward Member objected to the application on the following grounds:

·         the Council had recently established a five year land supply so the application was non-essential.

·         Ivel Road was a major road link between the A507 bypass to the town centre.  He referred to the difficulties experienced in vehicle movements and parking obstructions in Ivel Road at the section where the site access was proposed.

·         The Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to restrict parking in Ivel Road but only provide two parking spaces in the site would create an ongoing problem for the residents of Ivel Road.

·         To recognise that restrictions on parking would only be required during the operation of waste collections confirmed that the problem was anticipated and restrictions could not be enforced.  Should the emergency services or other vehicles be required to enter the site major problems would arise.

·         Whilst Anglian Water had claimed it had sufficient capacity to process foul drainage from the site at Clifton Water Recycling Centre he queried whether the drainage infrastructure was able to transport it to the Centre.  On many occasions he had witnessed the need for Clifton Road to be unblocked using a tanker vehicle as the system was gravity fed rather than through a pump system.  He added that the presence of a parked tanker adversely affected vehicle movements.

·         The list of items being considered for financial contribution recognised the importance of the Shefford Town Memorial Association (STMA) play area within the town.  It would be of benefit to the developer because it would not need to provide play areas as the STMA play area was on the site’s boundary.

·         There were no school places available in Shefford across all age ranges.  Whilst an extension at the Acorn Pre-School had been mentioned it was not possible as it lay sandwiched between the middle and lower schools.  The lower school had been extended twice within the last six years and could not be extended further.

·         It was not sustainable to transport children from the site to Meppershall Lower.  Meppershall was at near capacity the school would be oversubscribed as a result of local developments.  He believed that there were currently four vacancies with panning consent for 100 dwellings approved and a forthcoming public appeal with regard to a further 145 dwellings.

·         In the emerging Local Plan there was a potential to build a further 55 homes.  As a result of this expansion Meppershall would be unable to offer any lower school places.

·         Robert Bloomfield Middle School was at capacity even with the additional nine classes that were built a few years ago.

·         The measuring point for children to apply for places in Shefford schools was now the centre of the town.  Due to the location of the site it would gain preference over outlying homes that had been in the town for many years.  He argued that this was wrong and priority should be the provision of new schools

·         Shefford currently had over 250 homes approved and in varying stages of build.  The emerging Local Plan called for a further 72 properties which would feed into Ivel Road.

·         The rear garden sizes only ‘generally’ met the standards in the Council’s Design Guide.  He asked that the Committee ensure that all met the design standards.

·         The trees on the site and on its boundary were important to the development and should be retained.  Plot 11 should be repositioned to protect tree roots.

·         No provision had been made for fire hydrants in the cul-de-sac and he asked for this to be addressed.

·         He stressed that he was not opposed to a development on the site but his previous comments should be given consideration before a decision was made.

The ward Member asked that a decision on the application be deferred for three cycles for reconsultation or rejected outright.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         The emphasis was on the Council to provide an education strategy.  The onus was not on the applicant.  Through the contributions requested by education officers the officers were confident that they had a strategy to allow for the education of children and to alleviate the impact on the infrastructure.  It would not, therefore, be reasonable to refuse the application on those grounds.

·         With regard to concern over sewerage he pointed out that the SUDS officers had considered the application acceptable.  Further, detailed drainage plans had been requested by condition and sewerage would be more fully assessed at that stage.

·         The proposed parking arrangements, including the TRO and displacement parking bays, were considered acceptable in terms of vehicle movements.

·         Whilst the Council had a five year land supply the Committee was required to consider and assess all applications on their individual merits.  Further, the application complied with policies CS1 and DM4 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Polices (CSDMP) so it would be unreasonable to refuse the application because the Council had a five year land supply.

·         With regard to play areas the site was adjacent to an existing recreational ground and the applicant had offered a contribution in relation to the duty to meet infrastructure demand.

·         Only limited weight could be given to the emerging Local Plan at this stage and education were satisfied that, through contributions, a scheme for education could be provided.

·         Most of the rear gardens met the guidance document.  He stressed its status as a guidance.  In addition, the spacing around the properties was not dissimilar to that found at other homes in the surrounding area.  On the whole it could not be considered to be overdeveloped.

·         No request for fire hydrants had been received from the fire officer so they were not required.

The highways officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         The application was for only 37 dwellings so it fell below the Council’s requirement for a transport statement, the threshold being 50.

·         The standard database revealed 14-17 movements in the a.m. peak and 11-14 movements in the p.m. peak giving rise to an average of only one car every three minutes during the morning and evening rush hour peak.  This was not classified as severe under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·         The application site road width was 5.5 meters wide and so complied with the Council’s design guide.  The road width could be reduced to 4.8 meters for a site of that size.

·         To offset possible parking issues two visitor parking bays had been provided within the development near to Ivel Road and within the estate road that could be used when traffic restrictions were in operation.

·         He felt that throughout a 24 hour period a total of 200-250 movements was a reasonable estimate.

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

·         This was an application for a development within the settlement envelope.

·         The Council had a legal obligation to supply school places and, recognising that there was a shortage of land, the Education officers had agreed intermediate arrangements to do so until such time a new school or land for a new school was available or both.  A Member understood that a site had been identified in the emerging Local Plan for this purpose.

·         A Member sought clarification as to whether the application was outline or full as the application reference was outline and the recommended decision was approval for a full application.  In response the planning officer stated that the application was an outline application.  A second Member then sought a change to the application’s description so as to set out the maximum number of dwellings permitted.  A second planning officer explained that the application’s description could not be amended.  However, it was possible for the Committee to condition the maximum number of dwellings permitted.

·         A Member sought clarification on the planning officer’s earlier comment that ‘most’ of the rear gardens met the size requirements in the design guide.  In response the planning officer stated that the assessing officer was of the opinion that the majority of the rear gardens were of sufficient size in line with the guidance.  He stressed that the design guide was a guidance.  He was unable to identify the gardens or their number which failed to meet the requirements but overall sufficient spacing would be left around the buildings consistent with that found around existing dwellings to the south.  The Member stated that she would feel uncomfortable approving an application where she was unclear how many gardens met or did not meet the design guidance.  She acknowledged that the document was a guidance but that the Committee was keen that it was imposed and the application was for a reasonably substantial development so clarity was required.

·         The Member next sought clarification on the operation of the proposed TRO which she felt to be impractical.  In response the planning officer advised that the TRO would prevent parking in the turning and manoeuvrability areas for larger vehicles.  To offset any parking loss two bays would be provided for off street parking.  Following a further query regarding the times the TRO would operate the highways officer explained that times had not yet been approved.  He added that under the Highway Code parking was not permitted within 10 metres of a junction and this would be of relevance to emergency vehicles attempting to turn and manoeuvre during the times the TRO was not in operation.  The Chairman stated that the Highway Code did not have the force of law which was why TRO’s were used on junctions.

·         The Member again sought clarification on the above issue and queried whether, as she believed, there would be a temporary ban at a particular time to allow refuse vehicle access and turning.  She expressed extreme doubt that this would be enforceable.  The highways officer responded that the TRO would be permanent but the Member again queried its enforceability.  The Chairman stated that this would depend on the presence of the Council’s civil enforcement officers.  The highways officer confirmed that the TRO would be enforceable and double yellow lines would be employed.  Another Member asked if the two parking bays were covered by the TRO.  The highways officer explained that the bays within the development site would remain available for use at any time.

·         A Member reminded the Committee that it could not impose TROs as this was the function of the Traffic Management meeting.  He referred to a previous attempt by the Committee to do so and which had been rejected by Traffic Management.  The Chairman explained that should the application be approved as recommended then the Highways team would be required to submit the proposed TRO to Traffic Management for consideration.  He acknowledged it might or might not be approved.

·         A Member stated that the application was within the settlement envelope, the education authority had provided reasons for its stance on the application and whilst the proposed arrangements appeared unpalatable he asked that, should refusal of the application be moved, then it be supported by a good reason to do so.

·         A Member stated that having listened to the discussion he had not heard any substantive argument for refusal.  Following discussion he moved the recommendation subject to a condition that the scheme was for a maximum of 37 dwellings.  The recommendation was seconded.

·         As an aside the Member commented that reports used to include the hectarage of the site and how this made it possible to work out the density of a development.  He asked that this be included in future reports.

·         The second planning officer stated that the layout, space, position of buildings and gardens and the size of gardens formed part of the application.  If the application was approved, therefore, there would be no opportunity for the Committee to revisit the size of the gardens.  He pointed out that all matters were reserved on the application except for access and layout and explained that, whilst it would be possible to include a condition setting out the maximum number of dwellings, if the submitted plan was approved it would, in effect, determine this issue.  The Chairman commented that the application was unusual in that outline applications were normally for the principle and means of access.  The application before Members differed in that it also specified the layout.  The Member who had moved the recommendation acknowledged the clarification and withdrew the additional condition for a maximum number of dwellings.  This was also accepted by the seconder.

·         The ward Member stated that there were no school places available in Shefford.  Meppershall, Campton and Clifton were all full and the financial contributions being made available would last only a short period in being used to transport children to schools with places.  In response the Chairman stated that the Council had a statuary responsibility to provide school places but not where the places were.  The education officers had assured the Committee that they could find the spaces the Committee was left with no other option.

·         A Member commented that he felt consideration as to whether schools could accept additional pupils should involve the chair of governors.  In their absence, however, he felt that Members should not ignore officers’ advice.

·         A Member expressed concern regarding the means by which peak time vehicle movements were arrived at and his request that Members be briefed on how the model worked in order to gain a greater understanding.  He emphasised the importance of the issue.  The Chairman concurred and requested that it be included in Members’ annual training.

·         Following a Member’s query regarding the delay in submitting the application to the Committee the planning officer explained that the application had been open to amendments in order to overcome technical issues.

·         A Member noted that the planning officer who had written the report was not present and so was unable to advice on the number of houses with gardens that met the design guide.  She again stated that she was uncomfortable regarding the application and referred to earlier confusion as to whether the application was full or outline and what matters were covered by it.  She again sought clarification on how many houses contained gardens that met the design guide.  The Member reiterated that although only a guide it included standards which the Committee wanted to see applied.  The Member felt that she was being manipulated and did not have command of all of the information she required in order for her to make a decision.

On being put to the vote 7 Members for approval, 2 voted against and 2 abstained.

RESOLVED

That Planning Application No. CB/17/02615/OUT relating to Pinehurst, 17A Ivel Road, Shefford, and SG17 5LB be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.