Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor Julie Ashley-Wren declared an interest in Item 6 and stated she would not take part in the discussion or vote.   

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 30 June 2026.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held on 30 June 2026 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider the change of use of the public car park to a rental vehicle premises (Sui Generis), the erection of modular rental vehicle office and rental vehicle wash bay and associated works (including lighting and resurfacing).

The Committee considered an application for the change of use of part of the South Car Park at Primett Road from public parking to a vehicle rental facility, including the erection of an office, vehicle wash bay, associated lighting, resurfacing works and the provision of two car club bays.

The Planning Officer presented the report and reminded Members that the application had previously been deferred in March 2026 to allow for additional evidence regarding parking demand. It was noted that a Parking Impact Assessment had since been submitted, supported by more than 12 months of parking data covering the period from February 2025 to March 2026.

The assessment concluded that the loss of 90 parking spaces could be accommodated within the existing town centre parking provision 98% of the time. Members were also advised that the NHS permit arrangement currently operating from Primett Road was due to cease at the end of September 2026. It was noted that the High Street works would also only result in the permanent loss of only six parking spaces. Officers considered that the evidence satisfied the requirements of Policy IT8 and recommended approval.

The Chair introduced Mr Robert Stewart, from Stevenage Packaging Limited, who spoke in objection to the application on behalf of local businesses and residents to the Committee.

Mr Stewart expressed concerns regarding the loss of public parking spaces, the impact on Old Town businesses, future parking pressures arising from nearby developments and the adequacy of the parking assessment. He also questioned the transparency of arrangements between the Council and Enterprise Car Rental and suggested that alternative sites should be explored.

The Chair thanked Mr Stewart and welcomed Mr Chris Dodds from Planning Prospects to the Committee, who spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant.

Mr Dodds advised that the company's existing premises was no longer suitable for operational requirements and referred Members to the updated parking evidence, which he stated demonstrated that sufficient parking capacity remained within the Old Town. He further argued that the proposals aligned with local and national transport policies aimed at promoting sustainable travel and reducing dependency on private vehicle ownership.

The Chair thanked Mr Dodds and invited the Planning Officer to respond.

In response to comments raised by the speakers, the Planning Officer advised that no planning policy requirement existed for the applicant to consider alternative sites, and that the determination of the application should focus on compliance with Policy IT8 and the evidence submitted regarding parking demand.

Members questioned the loss of 90 parking spaces and whether the proposal would adversely affect local businesses. Officers explained to the Committee that the Local Plan identified opportunities for the redevelopment of surface car parks within the Old Town. It was advised that, should Members be minded to refuse the application, robust planning reasons and evidence would be required to defend such a decision at appeal.

Questions were raised about the potential for overspill parking issues if the allocated 90 spaces proved insufficient. Officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To consider the change of use of 6no. dwellinghouses (Use Class C3) to 6no. five-bedroom Houses of Multiple Occupation for up to six-persons each Use Class C4).

The Committee considered an application for 33 Julian’s Road which sought permission to change the use of six previously approved dwelling houses into six five-bedroom Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs).

Members were advised that planning permission had already been granted for two buildings containing three dwellings each, and that the current proposal related solely to a change of use rather than any significant alterations to the external appearance of the buildings.

The Senior Planning Officer presented photographs of the site and explained the proposed internal layout changes. It was noted that the substantial difference between the approved residential scheme and the proposed HMO arrangement was at ground floor level. The previously approved kitchen and dining areas at the front of the properties would become en-suite bedrooms, whilst communal kitchen and living spaces would be located to the rear. The upper floor layouts remained unchanged from the approved scheme.

The Chair invited Mr Ian Kilmurray, a local resident on behalf of the Orchard Road Community Group to address the Committee.

The objector stated that the application should be assessed on whether the site could accommodate six adjacent HMOs, providing 30 letting rooms for up to 36 residents. Concerns were raised regarding parking provision, including reliance on land outside the applicant’s ownership, as well as waste collection arrangements, emergency vehicle access, additional works to the property and the lack of further consultation with Hertfordshire Highways following plan amendments. Reference was also made to previous Fire and Rescue Service comments regarding site access difficulties and to concerns that the rear properties had already been fitted out as HMOs.

The Chair thanked Mr Kilmurray for his contributions and invited the Senior Planning Officer to respond.

In response, the Planning Officer confirmed that the photographs shown to the Committee had been taken in June. Whilst additional work may have been undertaken since that visit, the images accurately reflected the condition of the development at that time.

Before proceeding to Member questions, the Council’s legal representative raised a procedural matter relating to Councillor Jody Hannafin. It was noted that Councillor Hanafin had submitted an objection to the application on behalf of the Stevenage Old Town Business Community Partnership. Following advice, Councillor Hannafin agreed not to participate in the discussion or vote on the application.

In relation to fire safety concerns, Members were advised that the Fire Service was not a statutory planning consultee and that emergency access matters were primarily considered through Building Control and Hertfordshire County Council Highways. Highways officers had confirmed that emergency vehicle access was acceptable under guidance, and the development would also be subject to conditions requiring sprinkler systems within all units.

Officers acknowledged that there was an issue relating to one parking space affected by land ownership arrangements. However, it was considered that sufficient room existed for alternative provision and that any dispute regarding land ownership was a private matter between landowners. Officers stated that the Committee needed to consider whether the shortfall of one parking space would cause severe harm  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider the change of use of part of ground floor retail unit (46 Queensway), second floor office units (40-56 Queensway) from Use Class (E) to residential Use Class (C3) to provide 26 flats. Extension of two additional storeys and creation of new bin store and rear access with associated external alterations.

The Committee received a presentation on the application seeking planning permission for the change of use of part of ground floor retail unit (46 Queensway) and upper floor office accommodation at 40–56 Queensway to provide 26 flats, extension of two additional storeys and creation of new bin store and rear access with associated external alterations.

Members were advised that the proposal would deliver 23 one-bedroom and three two-bedroom flats on a sustainable brownfield site within the town centre, contributing towards the Borough's housing supply. The retained retail frontage would remain active, with alterations limited to the provision of residential access, cycle storage and servicing.

Officers advised that the existing office accommodation was outdated and unlikely to remain viable for employment use. Although no affordable housing was proposed, Members were informed that an independently assessed viability appraisal demonstrated the scheme could not currently support such provision, with a late-stage review mechanism to be secured through a Section 106 Agreement should viability improve.

The proposed development would include comprehensive refurbishment of the existing building, replacement windows, communal amenity space and two additional storeys. Officers acknowledged that the Council's Heritage Advisor had identified less than substantial harm to the Town Centre Conservation Area and nearby heritage assets, but advised that this harm should be weighed against the significant public benefits of housing delivery, regeneration and investment in the town centre.

It was also reported that the development would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation, comply with accessibility standards, operate as a car-free development in a highly sustainable location, and include measures to address noise, climate resilience and biodiversity.

During questions, Members sought clarification regarding the shortfall in cycle parking provision and were advised that site constraints prevented additional spaces without reducing active retail floorspace, with the deficiency to be mitigated through a financial contribution towards the cycle hire scheme operating in Stevenage.

Questions were also raised regarding the replacement of original Crittall windows, and the potential precedent for similar alterations elsewhere. Officers explained that each future application would be considered on its own merits and that the refurbishment represented an appropriate balance between preserving heritage and securing long-term investment in a deteriorating building within the Town Centre Conservation Area, which remained on Historic England's Heritage at Risk Register.

Members also discussed the wider regeneration benefits, the potential for neighbouring property owners to undertake similar improvements, the provision of swift bricks secured by condition, and the consistency of the design approach with other approved redevelopment schemes in Queensway. Following the questions, a motion to proceed to the debate and vote was proposed and seconded.

A vote was taken and It was RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out below and delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Regulation in consultation with the Chair of the Planning and Development Committee, to amend or add to the conditions subject to which the permission would be granted, where such amendments or additions would satisfy the relevant national policy tests  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider an application for a first floor rear extension over existing single storey rear extension.

The Committee considered a report seeking planning permission for a first-floor rear extension above part of an existing single-storey rear extension. It was noted that the application had been referred to the Committee because the applicant was related to a member of Council staff, in accordance with the Council's Constitution.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the proposal related to a property within a conservation area and explained that the extension would occupy only part of the existing flat-roofed rear extension, with the remaining section retained at single-storey level.

The Committee was informed that the Council's Conservation and Heritage Officer had raised no objections, concluding that, although the proposal would introduce some visual imbalance to the rear of the semi-detached property, it would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The Committee was advised that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity, with no significant adverse effects arising from overlooking, loss of light or overbearing impact. As there was no increase in the number of bedrooms, no additional parking assessment was required.

Members noted that the submitted climate statement demonstrated compliance with relevant building regulations for energy and water efficiency. The proposal was considered to comply with the relevant planning policies, and planning permission was therefore recommended for approval.

It was also noted that Councillor Julie Ashley-Wren, having declared an interest in the item, did not take part in its consideration.

Following the questions, a motion to proceed to the debate and vote was proposed and seconded.

A vote was taken and It was RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out below and delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Regulation in consultation with the Chair of the Planning and Development Committee, to amend or add to the conditions subject to which the permission would be granted, where such amendments or additions would satisfy the relevant national policy tests and would most effectively deliver the development which the Committee has resolved to approve.

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

1003-02-EBP; 1003-01-SLP; 1003-03-PBP; 1003-04-EPE ISSUE C; 1003-05-EPE ISSUE C;

2 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

3 The external materials used in the development to which this permission relates shall be those detailed on the approved plans and in the accompanying planning submission documents unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

4 No access shall be provided to the roof of the existing single storey extension by way of windows, doors or staircases and the roof of the existing extension shall not be used as a balcony or sitting out area.

The Council has acted Pro-Actively for the following reason:-

1 Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. The Council acted pro-actively through early engagement with the applicant at the pre-application stage which led to improvements to the scheme. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider an application for the installation of a Space Age Musical Pavilion.

The Committee considered an application for the installation of a space-age musical pavilion at King George V Playing Fields. Members were advised that the open-sided galvanised steel structure, approximately 3.8 metres in height, would provide seating and shelter whilst creating low-level ambient sounds from rainfall through a system of tuned drums.

Officers confirmed that the proposal would not result in the loss of open space and complied with Policy NH1. It would also preserve the character and appearance of the nearby conservation area, and would not adversely affect visual amenity or neighbouring residential properties. It was noted that the application did not require biodiversity net gain. It was also noted that the project was funded through the Government's Towns Fund and not by the Council.

During questions, Members sought clarification regarding the potential for antisocial behaviour and noise associated with the pavilion. Officers advised that the structure had been designed to be durable, and would benefit from natural surveillance due to its location near the proposed Play Zone, and that the sound produced would be low-level and unlikely to hear from nearby residential properties.

An update was also provided on the adjacent Play Zone, with officers confirming that the associated construction management plan had recently been approved and that delivery of the project was expected to commence in due course. Members welcomed the proposal before proceeding to determine the application.

Following the questions, a motion to proceed to the debate and vote was proposed and seconded.

A vote was taken and it was RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out below and delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Regulation in consultation with the Chair of the Planning and Development Committee, to amend or add to the conditions subject to which the permission would be granted, where such amendments or additions would satisfy the relevant national policy tests and would most effectively deliver the development which the Committee has resolved to approve.

1          The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Block Plan; Y26-136-GA1 Rev A; Site Location Plan;

2          The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

3          The external materials used in the development to which this permission relates shall be those detailed on the approved plans and in the accompanying planning submission documents unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

The Council has acted Pro-Actively for the following reason:-

1          Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. Discussion with the applicant to seek an acceptable solution was not necessary in this instance. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

INFORMATIVE

 1         Public Information on Planning Applications

            Warning: all information provided on your planning application is now publicly available. Individuals and organisations offering  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To note a report on decisions taken by the Director of Planning and Regulatory in accordance with his delegated authority.

It was RESOLVED that the Information Report – Delegated Decisions be noted.

To note a report on decisions taken by the Director of Planning and Regulatory in accordance with his delegated authority.

It was RESOLVED that the Information Report – Appeals / Called In Decisions be noted.

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

There was no Urgent Part I Business.

To consider the following motions that:

1.    Under Section 100(A) 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.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in paragraphs1 – 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act as amended by Local Government (Access toInformation) (Variation) Order 2006.

2.That Members consider the reasons for the following reports 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

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

There was no Urgent Part II Business.