Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Michael Downing declared an interest in Item 6 – 23 Essex Road due to being a neighbour to the development. Councillor Forhad Chowdhury declared an interested in Item 8 – Muslim Community Centre due to being the Trustee for the mosque. Both Councillors declared they would not vote in their respected Items.

Apologies for absence were received by Councillor Julie Ashley-Wren.

Councillor Michael Downing declared an interest in Item 6 – 23 Essex Road due to being a neighbour to the development. Councillor Forhad Chowdhury declared an interested in Item 8 – Muslim Community Centre due to being the Trustee for the mosque. Both Councillors declared they would not vote in their respected Items.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the previous meeting of the Planning & Development Committee held on 25 May 2023.

It was RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 25 May 2023 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

It was RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 25 May 2023 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

Demolition of existing 2no. semi-detached houses and erection of 20 no. flats comprising 12 no. 1 bed and 8 no. 2 bed, associated parking and ancillary works.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 22/00437/FPM be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report and the applicant having first entered into a S106 legal agreement.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 22/00437/FPM seeking the demolition of the existing 2 semi-detached houses and the erection of 20 flats comprising of 12 one-bed and 8 two-bed, associated parking, and ancillary works.

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members that the application was previously determined by the Committee on 4^th October 2022 and was granted subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and a suitable drainage strategy. The land was owned by Stevenage Borough Council (SBC) who was requesting the change of tenure in relation to affordable housing provision. The existing application was to be policy compliant for affordable housing which was 25% of the dwellings, the new application requested to change this to 100%.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation which included photos of the existing site, the houses that were to be demolished to make way for the block of 20 flats, as well as the previously developed March Hare site which gave an example of what the new block would look like. The garage block would form the car park for the development. She displayed photos of the traffic in the surrounding area and the access to the development which would be in Chertsey rise.

The Chair invited Ms J Wheeler, an objector, to address the Committee.

Ms Wheeler stated that a planning application was refused in 2001 due to the traffic issues in the area. There was congestion caused by refuse vehicles, which created more traffic caused by buses. The increase in vehicles due to this development would add to the congestion. Additionally she believed that families would be better in houses rather than flats.

The Chair thanked Ms J Wheeler for her contribution to the meeting.

The Chair then invited the Housing Development Representative to address the Committee.

The Housing Development Representative informed Members this application was only for a change in tenure, so SBC was successful in delivering affordable housing, which SBC wanted to increase for those in housing need. He stated that 85% of the 3000 people on the waiting list were in need of 1 and 2 bed accommodation. He informed Members that since the original application, the Housing Development team had secured funding and executive approval from SBC for the scheme. 

The Chair thanked the Housing Development Representative for their contribution to the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members the recommendations in the report were solely based on the affordable housing provision and that all other planning considerations on the previous application were not under consideration at the meeting. The application would provide 22.8% of the annual requirement for affordable homes.

There were ongoing negotiations between the developer and flood risk consultant to finalise an acceptable drainage strategy and recommend a suggested list of conditions. There had also been further conditions imposed in relation to climate change. She also noted under the planning history that they had received a prior approval application for the demolition of the existing dwellings. The land was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Demolition of existing semi-detached houses, sea cadets, nursery and scouts buildings and garages to provide 57no new dwellings with associated parking, facilities and landscape. Reconfiguration of existing public car park.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 22/00965/FPM be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report and the applicant having first entered into a S106 legal agreement, as well as the following amended conditions:

5             Notwithstanding the details set out in the application submission, no development shall take place above slab level until details of a hard and soft landscaping strategy and boundary treatment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the following:

1.    Details of all new planting to take place including species, size, quantity, location and method of planting;

2.    Details of all boundary treatments including type, size, positions, heights and materials;

3.    Details of any street furniture;

4.    Details of tree pit designs and root protection measures (if required);

5.    Details of all hardsurfacing areas to include type, size and materials;

6.    Details of replacement tree planting to achieve a ratio of 3:1.

REASON:- To ensure a satisfactory appearance for the development.

11           No development shall commence until details of 15 integrated Swift boxes and / or Swift Bricks and 4 integrated bat boxes have been submitted and approved by the LPA. These devices shall be fully installed prior to occupation and retained as such thereafter.

REASON:- To conserve and enhance biodiversity.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 22/00965/FPM seeking the demolition of existing semi-detached houses, sea cadets, nursery, and scouts’ buildings and garages to provide 57 new dwellings with associated parking, facilities, and landscape, as well as the reconfiguration of the existing public car park.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the site comprised of a mixture of uses. She added the north of the park was an allocated housing site in the Stevenage Local Plan. The car park was allocated open space in the Local Plan.

The Chair invited Lesley Dimery, an objector, to address the Committee.

Ms Dimery explained that Bedwell Crescent was a densely populated area, and the roads cannot support the extra cars from the new development. The location was also a pressure point with access to Fairlands Valley park, near a bus stop, a doctor surgery, and down the road from a primary school. She believed that the 52 spaces would not resolve the issue and the car parking was being reduced to supple the new homes. She believed the development was unsympathetic to the local town history and was changing the area from a low impact community to a high impact residential area. She also added that the reduction of the trees would not be mitigated by planting new trees as it would take them time to grow

The Chair thanked Ms Dimery for her contribution to the meeting.

The Chair then invited Jack Jeffreys of 5^th Stevenage Scouts, an objector, to address the Committee.

Mr Jeffreys stated he was speaking in relation to the relocation of the Scouts and Sea Cadets and his concerns with the medium- and long-term resettlement. He informed the Committee the applicant had been positive to work with and had proposed an alternative site in Hampson Park, but the building was considerably smaller. He believed the new location was cost effective but was only a short-term solution as they only had a 3-year term. He also expressed concerns that they could not safely accommodate the amount of youths in the Pin Green site. He stated that these issues were not formally recognised as a condition in the application and asked to be formally recognised within the Section 106.

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

The Chair invited the Housing Development Representative to address the Committee.

The Housing Development Representative informed Members this application was to construct and provide Stevenage residents with 57 new homes which included 24 flats and 33 houses along with 105 parking spaces. The Housing Development team held consultations over 2 years and received 6000 responses which they used to alter and enhance the scheme. For example the original scheme proposed 97 new houses but after consulting with the community this was reduced to 57. Another community concern was the traffic problem in the area and parking issues. The Housing Development team worked with the Highways Authority to benefit the parking situation as well as creating a new  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Demolition of existing multi storey garage blocks and construction of 96no. independent living apartments with associated parking, amenity space and improvements to the parking and refuse collection for the existing build.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 22/00963/FPM be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report and the applicant having first entered into a S106 legal agreement.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 22/00963/FPM seeking the demolition of existing multi storey garage blocks and construction of 96 independent living apartments with associated parking, amenity space and improvements to the parking and refuse collection for the existing building.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application and informed Members that Brent Court formed one of the three tower blocks on Silam Road. The development would replace the existing garage compound with a 7-storey assisted living block of flats for over 50s. There would be a parking compound beneath the building and one and two bed apartments that were constructed for future adaptability. There would be communal lounges with an open terrace and garden, as well as a hobby room, staff locker and staff changing rooms. Each flat had a window in the kitchen which overlooked the internal corridors as developers found that residents liked to see into the corridors from their flats.

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that one of the garage compounds had not been accessed since 2009 and there was informal car parking between the two garages. The proposed parking would include disabled parking spaces, spaces for 48 mobility scooters, and 96 cycle spaces. The lower level of the car park was available for Brent Court residents only. The overall building would be lower on Silam Road and was closer to the town centre gardens. There would also be solar panels on the roof.

The Chair invited Ms Viv Williams who spoke on behalf of Mr Paul Thompson, an objector, to address the Committee.

Ms Williams informed Members that parking had been an issue for Brent Court and less parking spaces would have a knock-on effect in the surrounding area. She believed this development would also cause congestion in Silam Road. She expressed concerns of noise and pollution having a negative impact on all Brent Court residents who would effectively be living on a building site. She explained that the existing Brent Court structure did not have air conditioning therefore many residents need their windows open which would be difficult during construction.

The Chair thanked Ms Williams for her contribution to the meeting.

The Chair then invited the Housing Development Representative to address the Committee.

The Housing Development Representative informed Members that there was no older person rented accommodation near the town centre. There was a high concentration of older residents living in 3-4 bed housing in Bedwell and the current housing stock is not appealing to them, so they don’t want to give up their homes and downsize. This development proposed to create 96 one and two bed apartments with parking for existing residents of Brent Court as well as the new development. He informed Members that there were 29 parking bays and 53 garages currently outside Brent Court, however only 19 residents rent these and the majority were used as storage. This proposal would deliver an extra 48 parking spaces for residents. The application also enhances safety of the town  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Demolition of existing entrance and detached garage, erection of two-storey side and part single-storey, part two-storey rear extension and to convert existing dwellinghouse into 6no. one-bedroom flats with associated parking and ancillary works.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00186/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report and with delegated authority given to the Assistant Director of Planning and Regulation in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee, to amend or add to the suggested draft conditions set out in this report, prior to the decision notice being issued, where such amendments or additions would be legally sound and most effectively deliver the development that the Planning Committee has resolved to approve. As well as the following added condition:

9          Prior to the beneficial occupation of the development to which this permission relates, acoustic mitigation measures to protect occupants of the development from nearby road traffic and plant noise shall be installed in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved measures shall be permanently retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

REASON:- In the interests of the living conditions of occupants of the development.

For this Item, Cllr Downing (Chair) withdrew from debate and voting due to his declared interest. Cllr Parris (Vice-Chair) chaired this Item.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 22/00186/FPM seeking the demolition of the existing entrance and detached garage, erection of part single storey, part two storey side and rear extensions to facilitate conversion into 5 flats with associated parking and ancillary works.

The Principal Planning Officer informed Members this application shared a driveway with two adjacent properties. This application would provide 3 one-bed and 2 two-bed flats and would have 8 parking spaces, including two visitor spaces and one disabled space.

A Member asked who called in the application and it was advised by the Development Manager that it was Councillor Rossati that called it in due to the impact on neighbours, character street scene and traffic implications.

Another Members asked whether there had been any objections from residents. It was advised that there were 13 objections which mostly focused on parking and the movement of vehicles.

A few Members asked questions relating to parking and access. It was advised that the two adjacent properties would retain their access and there would be new access for the parking. This would remove at least two informal on-street parking spaces. The waste collection vehicles would stop on the street rather than using the access.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00186/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report and with delegated authority given to the Assistant Director of Planning and Regulation in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee, to amend or add to the suggested draft conditions set out in this report, prior to the decision notice being issued, where such amendments or additions would be legally sound and most effectively deliver the development that the Planning Committee has resolved to approve. As well as the following added condition:

9          Prior to the beneficial occupation of the development to which this permission relates, acoustic mitigation measures to protect occupants of the development from nearby road traffic and plant noise shall be installed in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved measures shall be permanently retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

REASON:- In the interests of the living conditions of occupants of the development.

Conditions:

General

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 6925(P)001; 6925(P)104 Rev B; 6925(P)104-01 Rev B; 6925(P)105 Rev B; 6925(P)106 Rev B; 6925(P)107 Rev A; 200 Rev A; 6925(P)201 Rev A; 6925(P)202 Rev A; 6925(P)203.

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

3.    No demolition, construction or maintenance activities audible at the boundary and no deliveries of construction and demolition materials shall be undertaken outside the hours 07:30 hours to 18:00 hours Monday to Friday and 08:00  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Modification of Clause 2/3 of Section 52 Agreement (dated 22.12.1981) approved under planning permission reference number 81/2/0120/81.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00324/S106 be GRANTED the variation of clauses (ii) and (iii) of Schedule 3 of the S52 agreement and to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of the 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 23/00324/S106 seeking the modification of Clause 2/3 of Section 52 Agreement (dated 22.12.1981) approved under planning permission reference number 81/2/0120/81.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the site was originally a house which, in 1981, was granted to be used as a care home for the elderly as well as space for a resident housekeeper. This was done under a Section 52 agreement, which was now known as a Section 106 agreement. This restricted the use of the land and the frontage was to be used for parking of 5 vehicles. Unlike the conditions on a decision notice, the legal agreement would still bind them even with a change.

A Member asked for clarification of what this meant. It was advised that this prevented other uses of the site. The Development Manager also advised that the obligations did not meet the current requirements.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00324/S106 be GRANTED the variation of clauses (ii) and (iii) of Schedule 3 of the S52 agreement and to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of the Planning and Regulation in conjunction with the Council’s appointed Solicitor to agree the precise wording of the variation to the agreement.

Erection of outbuilding for purposes ancillary to funeral services.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00365/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report with authority given to the Assistant Director of Planning and Regulation in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee, to amend or add to the suggested draft conditions set out in this report, prior to the decision notice being issued, where such amendments or additions would be legally sound and most effectively deliver the development that the Planning Committee has resolved to approve.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 23/00365/FP seeking the erection of an outbuilding for purposes ancillary to funeral services.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that this application had come to the Committee as the Council was the landowner and there had been more than 5 objections. The proposed application would be hidden behind the Mosque and could not be seen from Vardon Road. The objections received state that it had been built already but this was not true. Currently the Mosque in Luton provides funeral services for Stevenage.

The Chair invited Mr Leigh Risbridger who spoke on behalf of Mr Niall Thompson, an objector, to address the Committee.

Mr Risbridger expressed his belief that there was an erosion of the area due to the additions to the Mosque and believed that they had taken more land than what was given to them. He highlighted the traffic and parking issues in the area that had not been resolved and also raised concerns of noise.

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

The Chair then invited Councillor Forhad Chowdhury, a supporter, to address the Committee.

Cllr Chowdhury informed Members that this building would provide important support and facilities to the Muslim Community and other communities in the area, and it was important to the Mosque that they promote harmony and community cohesion with other members of the community. The Mosque provided children’s education, prayers, and hosted students from schools in the area for Religious Studies. The Mosque had extended the original building with a 3-storey extension to facilitate different services such as IT support, women’s education, and elderly support. He noted the traffic issues, which was mostly on a Friday due to the main prayer, as the Mosque hosted people from Stevenage as well as other suburbs. Cllr Chowdhury informed the Committee that the Muslims had an obligatory ritual with funerals and people in Stevenage often had to travel to Luton or London for the facilities so it would be helpful to have this in Stevenage.

The Chair thanked Cllr Chowdhury for his contribution to the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members planning permission was granted in 1994 and 2001. This was permission to use the Mosque for funeral services however there were no complete funeral services available in East or North Hertfordshire. She described the Islamic right of washing and shrouding the body in silence which took place in Luton, which had to be transported from Lister Hospital, before being transported to Stevenage for a funeral prayer and then burial in Weston Road Cemetery. The longest time a person would be stored in the building would be overnight as funerals happened quickly. It only had capacity for 2 bodies and would not be used as a mortuary. She highlighted that the funeral home Austin’s in the Old Town was closer to residential buildings and held bodies for a longer time. There would also be no noise as the services were completed in silence.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Change of use from Takeaway (Sui Generis) to Restaurant (Class E) and erection of shed in rear yard.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00337/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report with authority given to the Assistant Director of Planning and Regulation in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee, to amend or add to the suggested draft conditions set out in this report, prior to the decision notice being issued, where such amendments or additions would be legally sound and most effectively deliver the development that the Planning Committee has resolved to approve.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 23/00337/FP seeking the change of use from Takeaway (Sui Generis) to Restaurant (Class E) and the erection of a shed in the rear yard.

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members the site was a vacant takeaway unit with a rear yard. There was a residential care home to the rear, pedestrian access to the side and stairs leading up to the flats above. There would only be a small amount of the proposed shed visible above the fence.

The Chair invited Ozan Tek, an objector, to address the Committee.

Mr Tek raised concerns with the early morning shutters and the tables and chairs proposed outside the front of the shop, mainly due to noise issues due to their bedroom being above. He also had concerns with the smell adding to the other smells in the area from other takeaways such as the pizza and kebab takeaway shops and litter from customers. He expressed concerns over parking issues as it was already busy and would increase the footfall and urged the Committee to consider parking permits for residents or visitor parking in place.

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

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the café was acceptable under the new use class E which covered commercial business and service. It would also bring a vacant unit back into use and in the long term would improve the viability of neighbourhood centres. She reminded Members that competition of trade is not a planning consideration.

The Senior planning Officer informed the Committee that there were no alterations to the existing property other than the erection of a shed which would be screened by the existing fence. The outside tables and chairs would be controlled by environmental health who had imposed some conditions, which were to prevent tables and chairs being out before 8am Monday-Friday and before 9am on the weekend and bank holidays. Operating hours would be 6am-6pm and there were no concerns raised on this matter. She noted that these times were early, but this was not unusual for neighbourhood centres. She added that the closing time was similar to the opening time of other shops in the area and the overlap isn’t significant. There was enough parking to accommodate customers and no issues for parking or highway safety were raised.

A Member asked how many seats would be outside. It was advised that the number of outside seating had not been provided but this was a licensing matter, not a planning matter.

A few Members raised concerns with the opening times. The Senior Planning Officer advised that the newsagents in the area operate similar times and also had flats above and haven’t received any complaints. She reminded Members that opening times were controlled through the Licensing Committee and were not a planning consideration.

A Member asked what the outside shed was used for and was advised that it was for storage.

Some Members expressed concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To note a report on decisions taken by the Assistant Director (Planning and Regulation) in accordance with his delegated authority.

It was RESOLVED: That the information report be noted.

It was RESOLVED: That the information report be noted.

To note a report on decisions taken by the Assistant Director (Planning and Regulation) in accordance with his delegated authority.

It was RESOLVED: That the information report be noted.

It was RESOLVED: That the information report be noted.

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.