Agenda item

Agenda item

Planning Application No. CB/18/03781/FULL (Shefford)


Address:       32 Shefford Road, Meppershall, Shefford, SG17 5LN


Demolition of No. 32 Shefford Road and existing nursery buildings, and the construction of 60 No. dwellings, new vehicle access, site wide highways works, and provision of associated landscaping and amenity space (including SuDS).


Applicant:    Inland Homes PLC





The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/03781/FULL for demolition of No.32 Shefford road and existing nursey buildings, and the construction of 60 new dwellings, new vehicle access, site-wide highways works, and provision of associated landscaping and amenity space (including SuDS) at 32 Shefford Road, Meppershall, Shefford, SG17 5LN.


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 Paul Smith, a representation in objection from Dr Chappell and a representation from the agent for the applicant in support from Paul Galgey.


Committee Members discussed the following points:


           It was reported by the public speaker that Meppershall will have had a cumulative housing increase of 30% in the last two years and the village infrastructure was under pressure as a result. The planning officer replied that each application must be judged on its own merit and the cumulative impact of other developments was not a consideration in determining the application before Committee.


           Members noted they sympathetic towards the amount development in Meppershall as it was noted that 145 houses previously refused by the Council had been granted by appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.


           It was noted that this application was not considered premature and to use this as a reason for refusal would be unlikely to be supported within the NPPF if the benefits of the application outweigh the harm.


           It was reported by the public speaker that Meppershall suffers from potentially dangerous traffic problems with pinch points by the shop and nursing home. The Highways officer responded that the application was supported by the Highways team, there had been a traffic assessment carried out and there was a condition for a raised table at the access point to the site. Members added that the raised table should not be constructed from tarmac, instead a material in keeping with its rural location should be considered.


           In response to a challenge to the validity of the noise survey, the Planning Officer noted that there had been no objections raised or conditions from the Pollution Officer.


           With regards to flooding concerns, it was noted that the FRA had been assessed by the Environmental Agency and they raised no objections. There was however conditions in relation to flood mitigation.


           In regards to a neighbour consultation, it was reported by the public speaker that the plans being considered differed from those shown to residents. In response  the Planning Officer noted that the landscaping scheme conditions were seen to be sufficient to ensure the amenities to neighbouring occupiers.


           Members considered points raised by Ward Members in the form of a read statement. It reported that although Meppershall’s infrastructure was under cumulative pressure from developments, the application was seen as sympathetic to the existing dwellings it would border and supported the traffic calming measures within the conditions. Ward Members added they would like careful consideration to be given to landscaping of the site and with adequate conditions they would support the approval of the application.


           Members agreed that a delivery clause should be added to ensure the application would come forward to support the five year land supply in any forthcoming S106 Agreement.


           It was noted that the application was subject to S106 agreement and made comment to the developers that contributions to S106 as stated within the report would be required as part of the approval.


           Members agreed to move as set out with the additions of conditions and informatives in the late sheet, the addition of a delivery clause to the S106 agreement.


On being put to the vote for APPROVAL, 10 voted in favour, and 1 abstention.




That the Planning Application No. CB/18/03781/FULL at 32 Shefford Road, Meppershall, Shefford, SG17 5LN, be approved as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes.




Supporting documents: