Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Doug Bainbridge, Jody Hanafin and Nigel Williams.

Councillors Myla Arceno, John Blackwood and Jeff Bullock were in attendance as substitutes.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 4 August 2026.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held on 4 August 2026 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider the incorporation of the existing car park into foodstore car park, the creation of a pedestrian route and ancillary works.

The Committee received a presentation on the application for the change of use of a Council-owned private car park to form part of the Aldi car park.

Members were advised that concerns raised by Cycling UK regarding existing cycle storage were outside the application site and were therefore not relevant to the determination of the application. Any issues relating to the existing cycle storage would be considered separately by officers.

Members were shown the original, amended and final plans, along with site plans. The original application included a pedestrian and cycle route through the car park, which would have required cyclists to dismount. Following concerns from Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) Highways and members of the public, alternative arrangements were considered.

The final proposal retained the shared pedestrian and cycle route around the outside of the car park, separated from vehicles by fencing. The route would also be provided with a new surface.

The Committee was advised that the existing Council car park contained 37 spaces. It was noted that 25 of these spaces would be incorporated into the new Aldi car park, five would remain available for Council use and seven spaces would be lost. Therefore, the car park would increase from 95 to 120 spaces.

The Council's Leisure and Green Spaces team had raised no objection to the loss of the car parking spaces, and officers considered that the operational and economic benefits outweighed the limited harm arising from the loss of seven spaces.

In respect of design, visual impact and heritage, the site would remain predominantly hardstanding, with enhanced landscaping proposed, and the setting of the Old Town Conservation Area would be preserved.

The Committee was advised that there was no significant impact on residential amenity anticipated. Existing access from Fairlands Way, public transport links and the wider pedestrian and cycle network would remain.

The amended plans addressed the concerns raised regarding the pedestrian and cycle route, and HCC Highways had subsequently withdrawn its objection.

It was noted that no existing trees would be removed, and the proposal included 10 new trees and additional landscaping.

Questions were raised to officers about pedestrian access, and it was confirmed that pedestrians may continue to take the shortest route through the car park, however the proposed route would provide the safest alternative and would be separated from vehicles.

Members were advised that the five spaces retained by the Council would continue to be available for sports users.

In response to a question regarding parking provision, officers explained that the existing Aldi parking provision was within the acceptable level under the Council's parking standards.

Members queried the Regeneration Manager's comments regarding connectivity and the Towns Fund. Officers clarified that the comments related to the proposal no longer met the Towns Fund funding criteria, and therefore the comments were related to this, rather than a planning objection. 

A question was raised regarding biodiversity net gain and the use of native tree species. Officers confirmed that the biodiversity net gain condition would need to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To consider a two storey front and side extensions; part single, part two storey rear extension; alterations to front elevation; and new vehicular crossover.

The Committee were presented with both applications for items four and five together, but it was noted they would vote on each item separately.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the applications relating to 134 and 136 Shephall View. The application relating to 134 Shephall View sought front, side and rear extensions to adapt the property to provide accessible accommodation for a disabled family. It was noted that the application had to come to Committee due to the Council being the applicant.

The proposed works included a two-storey side extension, a two-storey rear extension and alterations to provide a fully wheelchair-accessible ground floor, including a bedroom, wet room and level access. Three parking spaces would be provided, including a disabled parking space.

The proposed works would require the demolition of the existing garage serving 134 Shephall View, which formed part of a shared garage structure with 136 Shephall View. As a result, the application for 136 Shephall View sought the demolition and replacement of its existing garage with a new detached garage, ensuring that the neighbouring property retained its parking provision.

Members were advised that the proposals complied with the relevant Local Plan policies and would not result in unacceptable impacts on the neighbouring property in terms of outlook, privacy, daylight or sunlight.

Questions were raised regarding the consideration for the property to be exempt from the Right to Buy scheme to protect it as an accessible housing asset for future disabled households. Officers explained that this was outside the remit of the Planning Committee, and would be a matter for housing and legal services. It was agreed that the matter could be discussed outside the meeting to consider whether any further action could be taken.

Questions were also raised about the change in the Council's design guidance, specifically the extension being stepped forward, and whether this approach would ordinarily be permitted. Officers explained that each application was considered on its individual merits. In this case, the additional footprint was considered necessary to provide the space required for a wheelchair-accessible dwelling to meet Building Regulation requirements.

It was also noted that the Public Sector Equality Duty had been taken into account in the assessment, including the benefits to a person with protected characteristics.

Members asked whether the property was intended to be used as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). Officers confirmed that the application related to a single-family dwelling for a disabled occupant. It was noted that if the property was used as an HMO, a separate planning application for a change of use from C3 to C4 would be required.

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

During debate, Members spoke in support of the application, noting that the proposed works would bring the building up to modern Building Regulations standards.

Members considered that the improved construction and overall appearance would be a significant enhancement to the street. The provision of appropriate parking was also welcomed, particularly given the wider  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider the demolition of an existing garage and erection of replacement garage.

The Committee were presented with this application alongside the previous item, and it was noted that voting would take place separately on each item.

Discussions and questions took place, regarding the demolition and replacement of the existing garage at 136 Shephall View with a new detached garage, which ensured that the neighbouring property retained its parking provision.

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.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS/REASONS

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

            21151-P008-A; 21151-P007-A;

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 their services may contact you. The Council does not endorse or approve any builders, surveyors, trades persons or other supplier, and advises householders to obtain quotes/references, and check the legitimacy of any contractor who contacts them before making payment.

 2         Community Infrastructure Levy

            Stevenage Borough Council adopted its revised Community Infrastructure Levy (SCIL2) Charging Schedule at Full Council on 10 June 2026 and started implementing SCIL2 on 22 July 2026.

            This application may be liable for CIL payments and you are advised to contact the CIL Team for clarification with regard to this. If your development is CIL liable, even if you are granted an exemption from the levy, please be advised that it is a requirement under Regulation 67 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) that CIL Form 6 (Commencement Notice) must be completed, returned and acknowledged by Stevenage Borough Council before building works start. Failure to do so will mean you risk losing the right to payment by instalments and a surcharge may be imposed. NB, please note that a Commencement Notice is not required for residential extensions if relief has been granted.

            Stevenage's adopted SCIL2 Charging Schedule and further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

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.