Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Rob Broom and Anne Wells .

Councillor Conor McGrath substituted for Councillor Rob Broom.

There were no declarations of interest.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Rob Broom and Anne Wells .

Councillor Conor McGrath substituted for Councillor Rob Broom.

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider a reserved matters application for the construction of a Country Park including access, layout and landscaping pursuant to Outline permission 17/00862/OPM.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 22/00781/RMM be GRANTED reserved matters planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report, with the inclusion of additional conditions to re-assess the street furniture proposed in the Country Park and boundary treatments on all boundaries with Chesfield Park to the north-east of the site, and with the Assistant Director (Planning & Regulation) being delegated authority, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning & Development Committee, to amend or add to the suggested draft conditions prior to the decision notice being issued.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 22/00781/RMM seeking the construction of a Country Park including access, layout and landscaping pursuant to Outline permission 17/00862/OPM. The Principal Planning Officer reminded Members that this application had been deferred from the 14^th March 2023 Planning Committee.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the site was allocated in the Local Plan through Policy HO3 which gave full provision of the site and included things such as residential units and a site for a school. A requirement of this policy was a Country Park. The Local Plan Policy NH8 which related to the provision of the North of Stevenage Country Park. In 2020 outline planning permission was approved.

The houses to the south were approved and there had been several reserved matters applications considered including Phase 1D of 115 residential units, Phase 1A-C of 243 residential units, and the infrastructure which included the drainage for the Country Park. There would be a flood attenuation basin which would be grass lined and would only fill up in occasions of flooding.

Photos of the site plan and location were presented which included the locations of the community orchard, the potential animal grazing, the toilet block and car park, the footpaths around the site, and the grounding tower.

The Chair introduced Chris Naylor, an objector, to address the Committee.

Mr Naylor addressed the committee and stated that the Country Park would ruin the historic fields and believed that this was an urban fringe park rather than the restoration and recreation of the fields for a rural meadow. The previous application was deferred asking for deeper engagement with residents, but he believed the application had not changed to reflect any concerns. He raised concerns on the size and occupancy of the car park, such as hospital staff using it, and the cycle superhighway and suggested that there should be a better connection. He raised further concerns around the proposed mound and the number of bins within the park.

The Chair thanked Mr Naylor for his contribution to the meeting.

The Chair then introduced Jo Unsworth, the developer, to address the Committee.

Ms Unsworth advised that the proposals were supported by the Planning Officers and Stevenage Direct Services who would eventually manage the park. The aim of the Country Park was to create a landscape that Forster would’ve recognised in the early 20^th century. For example, planting species referred to in Forster’s writing, biodiverse hay meadows, and replicating original field patterns. This would increase the biodiversity by 59% through planting woodlands, hedgerows, and a community orchard. The Country Park would be free, open, and accessible to all. The plans had changed in response to feedback and included downgrading the side of the paths, redesigning the toilet block, and changing half of the carpark to an overflow agreement. The widths of paths were a key concern but was specified in a legal agreement to ensure the park could be enjoyed by all. Alternative car park locations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

To consider an application seeking the modification of Schedule 2 Clause 2.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7, Schedule Clause 3.2, Schedule 5 Part 1 Clause 1.2, 1.5, and 2.1.1 and Schedule Clause 2.1 and 2.4 to Section 106 Agreement (dated 01.09.2022) approved under planning permission reference number 17/00862/OPM.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00529/S106 be GRANTED a variation to the S106 Planning Obligation as set out in the table in the report and subject to final drafting and to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and Regulation in conjunction with the Council’s appointed Solicitor to agree the precise wording of the variation to the agreement.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 23/00529/S106 seeking the modification of Schedule 2 Clause 2.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7, Schedule 3 Clause 3.2, Schedule 5 Part 1 Clause 1.2, 1.5 and 2.1.1 and Schedule 7 Clause 2.1 and 2.4 to Section 106 Agreement (dated 01.09.2022) approved under planning permission reference number 17/00862/OPM.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that there were clauses within the Section 106 (S106) agreement that stated developers had to meet certain deadlines and requirements. It was unrealistic for developers to meet the targets previously set due to the delays in applications. There was a prior to commencement delay due to the Country Park application being deferred earlier in the year. The application proposed to increase and move the date triggers to take into account the delays going through the planning process.

Some Members raised concerns on the movement of the trigger dates. The Assistant Director (Planning & Regulatory) advised that the new trigger dates aimed to follow the same ratio of timings as if it hadn’t been pushed back. For example one had been pushed back by 6 months as the Country Park application was delayed by 8 months. Many still had end dates and others were based on residential development.

Jo Unsworth also added that there was a limit on the number of dwellings that could be built. There were also long stop dates within the S106 agreements and dates when both phases of the Country Park and the school land had to be transferred to SBC.

Another Member asked whether the housing market impacted the demand. The Planning Manager for Bellway advised that work had commenced on the residential phases and there was no intention from Bellway to stop the sales so there would be no impact on their behalf.

A Member asked when the commencement date was. The Assistant Director (Planning & Regulatory) advised that the commencement date was when the developers started work on the residential site. There was a guaranteed date when SBC received the Country Park and school site. There was currently a lot of archaeological work happening on the site.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that several reserved matters had been approved and the developers were at liberty to start building. There was a lot of infrastructure underway and some of the site was still an active archaeological site. The report enabled works to carry on without the Country Park, which they could not start, but would have deadlines.

Another Member asked what would happen if the recommendation was turned down. The Assistant Director (Planning & Regulatory) advised that the reasoning for the amendments were to enable the Country Park to come in its own time but would guarantee a transfer.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00529/S106 be GRANTED a variation to the S106 Planning Obligation as set out in the table in the report and subject to final drafting and to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and Regulation in conjunction with the Council’s appointed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To consider any Part I Business accepted by the Chair as urgent.

There was none.

There was none.

To consider the following motions that:

1.       Under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in Paragraphs 1 - 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act as amended by Local Government (Access to information) (Variation) Order 2006.

2.       That Members consider the reasons for the following reports (if any)being in Part II and determine whether or not maintaining the exemption from disclosure of the information contained therein outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Not required.

Not required.

To consider any Part II Business accepted by the Chair as urgent.

There was none.

There was none.