Agenda and minutes

Councillors Tracey declared an interest in agenda item 5 (Hill Farm) she took no part in the determination or deliberation of the item. Councillor Hyman declared a non-pecuniary interest in the same item, he took no part in the determination or deliberation of the item

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 2^nd April, 2024.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on Tuesday, 7th May were confirmed and signed as a correct record by the Chair.

Please note that any late material in respect of the applications detailed below will be published as a supplement on the Council’s website in the late afternoon of the day before the meeting. Additional late material will be uploaded as a supplement on the Council’s website on the day of the meeting, should further relevant representations be received thereafter.

Late material had been circulated in relation to agenda item 5 (Hill Farm - 23/00993/REM).

Application for determination:

Reserved matters application for the delivery of 185 dwellings, public open space, structural planting and landscaping, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation and vehicular access point from Hempsted Lane pursuant to outline planning permission ref. 20/00315/OUT / appeal ref. APP/U1620/W/22/3296510 (reserved matters of scale, layout, appearance and landscaping applied for).

A site visit was conducted on the site on the morning of 4^th June 2024 to allow for full consideration of the application site.

Councillors Tracey and Hyman withdrew from the Chamber during the consideration of the item. Councillor Tracey addressed the committee as Ward Member during the public speaking slot but had no involvement in members’ questions, debate, or voting on the item.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report detailing a reserved matters application for the delivery of 185 dwellings, public open space, structural planting and landscaping, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation and vehicular access point from Hempsted Lane pursuant to outline planning permission ref. 20/00315/OUT / appeal ref. APP/U1620/W/22/3296510 (reserved matters of scale, layout, appearance and landscaping applied for).

Councillor Tracey addressed the Committee as the local ward member.

She highlighted the following concerns regarding the application:

-       Highways concerns.

-       The application site was the only green space left in Hempsted.

-       Detrimental impacts on residents on either side of the lane.

-       Concerns about construction traffic during the development phase.

-       Concern about emergency vehicles getting in and out of the site.

-       She questioned whether traffic lights would be installed.

-       Traffic concerns, particularly during the school run.

-       If the application was approved, it would be more suitable if a 20mph zone was introduced from the start of Secunda way to Hempsted Lane.

-       Impact on bus services.

-       Hempsted Lane was too narrow.

A representative of the Hempsted Residents Association spoke in opposition to the application.

He said the application should be refused for the following reasons:

-       A steeply sloping, productive arable site that flooded regularly, downwind of the Netheridge Sewage works, with single access via a narrow lane, was not the most suitable site in the area for such a large development.

-       There was strong local resistance to the application.

-       The properties were densely packed.

-       The southern end of the site flooded regularly, and was within the Cordon Sanitaire, where development was not permitted. This meant that the properties had to be more densely packed than was appropriate.

-       Existing properties would be subjected to noise and light pollution.

-       There was a risk that the occupiers of the dwellings would park outside of existing properties that were already short of visitor parking due to an average of more than 2 cars per property.

-       The traffic lights at Hempsted Bridge were approximately 100m from the single access, so rather than queuing during peak school drop-off times, vehicles leaving the site will be tempted to turn left on the narrow lane past the school.

-       The proposed apartments did not have outdoor space nor balconies.

-       The Civic Trust were critical of the lack of cycle tracks, and the dangers to cyclists should they venture onto the steep footpaths. The Inspector’s Condition 16 stated that drawings of access for pedestrians and cyclists should be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before development commenced.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Application for determination:

Single storey rear extension.

The Planning Development Manager presented the report which detailed an application for a single storey rear extension.

A local resident spoke in opposition to the application.

He said the application should be refused on the following grounds.

-       He was speaking on behalf of his mother who lived next door.

-       A loft conversion was also taking place, not just the application before the committee.

-       The loft would had a detrimental impact on light.

-       This proximity to the boundary fence would leave a narrow alleyway – this creates risks of blockages and limited access.

-       Already had to deal with instances of anti-social behaviour from the applicant.

-       He disagreed with the officer’s report comment that the proposal would not bring about an adverse level of harm to the amenity of Number 18, neither in terms of loss of light/outlook nor in terms of overbearing impacts upon the patio area.

-    There would be a lot of dust created by the application during the construction phase.

-       The application was already a four-bedroomed property. The application would add an additional two bedrooms.

Members’ Questions

The Planning Development Manager responded to members’ questions concerning the dormer window, a separate application for a loft conversion, whether conditions could be imposed to set hours in which construction could take place, what would happen if the applicant converted the property into an HMO, whether there would be any detrimental impact on the neighbour should the application receive consent, what would happen if the applicant did not build in accordance to the plans, whether the pedestrian access would be affected and what materials would be as follows:

-       There were two applications. The dormer window application benefitted from a certificate of lawful development and was not within the scope of what was in front of the committee. The dormer window had already been approved. Therefore, zero to minimal weight should be attached to it.

-       If the dwelling house wanted to become an HMO, the site would fall under a different use class, requiring permission due to the material change of use. The proposal in front of the committee was for a single-story extension. The application was also not proposing to provide additional bedrooms, suggesting that there were no plans to convert it to an HMO later.

-       It may not be reasonable to specify work times due to the small size of the application.

-       The case officer concluded that the application was acceptable in terms of amenity impact, and he concurred with this assessment.

-        If the applicant built the development not in accordance with the plans, and if there was expediency to undertake enforcement action, they would do so.

-       The pedestrian access to the side would not be altered.

-       There was a condition which stated that the materials to the proposed development must match in colour, form and texture to those of the existing building.

Members’ Debate

"Councillor Lewis stated that he agreed with the points raised by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider a schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the months of March and

RESOLVED that the delegated decisions of March 2024 were noted.

Tuesday 2^nd July, 2024.

Tuesday, 2^nd July 2024.