Ashwell Parish Council

APPENDIX 1 ASHWELL PARISH COUNCIL

Clerk Jane Porter (Mrs), 89 Back Street, Ashwell, Baldock, Herts, SG7 5PG Telephone/Fax 01462 743706 Email [email protected]

Mr Richard Tiffin 23rd October 2014 Area Planning Officer Planning and Environment North Herts District Council Gernon Road Letchworth SG6 3JF

Dear Mr Tiffin

Re Case Ref No: 14/02611/1 Land rear of 39-59 Station Road For Tingdene Developments Ltd. Outline Planning Permission: Outline Planning Application (all matters reserved, except for access) comprising the proposed development of up to 17 dwelling houses and a Multi-Use Games Area with associated access off Green Lane and egress via Station Road.

This application was considered at the recent meeting of the Parish Council Planning Committee.

It was resolved (unanimous) that a recommendation for refusal be conveyed to the Planning Officer.

Reiterating the objections made to the previous application (case ref no. 14/01941/1; see appendix) (i) the access proposed was unsuitable and dangerous, (ii) the adverse impact of additional traffic in an already problematic area, where the effect of already approved development was yet to be measured, was unacceptable, (iii) the site was outside the policy boundary in an area of protected landscape.

Emphasising that the application did not satisfy planning policy criteria; the site was outside the policy boundary, it gave no consideration to the impact on the adjacent conservation area, it did not meet the tests for sustainability.

Please find enclosed a full copy of the draft minutes of that meeting.

Please contact me if any clarification is required.

Yours sincerely,

Jane Porter (Mrs), Clerk Ashwell Parish Council

PLANNING CONTROL (17.12.14) APPENDIX 1

Cc District Councillor Andrew Young

Minutes of a meeting of the Ashwell Parish Council Planning Committee held on Sunday 19th October 2014 at 9.00am Present: Councillors Mark White (Chairman), Jane Buxton, Graham Lee, Madeleine Legg, Peter Long, Bridget Macey, David Short, David Sims. The Clerk was also in attendance. Part A 1. Apologies Cllrs Mike Berry (unwell), John Connolly (away), Martin Hoffman (away). 2. Minutes of meeting 14th September 2014 It was resolved that these be approved and signed. 3. Declarations of interest None

Part B On site considerations. Item 05 Case Ref No: 14/02611/1 Land rear of 39-59 Station Road For Tingdene Developments Ltd. Outline Planning Permission: Outline Planning Application (all matters reserved, except for access) comprising the proposed development of up to 17 dwelling houses and a Multi-Use Games Area with associated access off Green Lane and egress via Station Road. Members of the public present: 28 parishioners. Correspondence received: Four letters and emails to the Parish Council/copies of those to other authorities. It was noted that there had also been comments logged on the NHDC website all objecting to the proposals. The Chairman reminded parishioners present that this was a new application, with a new case reference number; members of the public wishing to reiterate objections made to previous applications for the site should resend their comments to NHDC, the Planning Authority, quoting the new reference number. I t was resolved to suspend Standing Orders for members of the public to ask questions and state their views. Members of the public and parish councillors reiterated their objections made in response to previous applications on the site (see attached appendix; letter to NHDC Planning Officer following Planning Committee 7th September 2014). Access - The change from the previous application, ie the Station Road track now proposed only for pedestrians/cyclists with all vehicles going in and out via Green Lane, was noted. The view was expressed that this change proposed to the access was ‘even more dangerous’. The current application again failed to adequately take into account the traffic generated by the 22 flats at The Maltings; it was noted that the 30 associated car parking spaces were routinely filled in the evenings. It was also noted that the two-way vehicular access to the rear of nos. 35 and 37 Station Road via the track now proposed for pedestrians/cyclists had again not been adequately considered. In the report submitted by the applicant’s agent for the previous withdrawn application (Alliance Planning, 2.1.5, July 2014) ‘…the County Highways Team expressed concern with regard to the proposed two-way access and egress from Station Road…’. The application also failed to take into account traffic and parking generated by the proposed games area. Planning Policy – It was noted that the site was outside the village envelope and no need had been established.

PLANNING CONTROL (17.12.14) APPENDIX 1 The site had not been identified as land allocated for development. The site was in close proximity to the conservation area boundary; the impact on this had not been considered. Reference had been made to statements dating from 2007; these were out-of-date as there had been substantial development since then. The view was expressed that the application did not meet the tests for sustainability. Standing Orders reinstated. Parish councillors endorsed the concerns expressed by residents. A proposal was made, and seconded, that a recommendation for refusal be conveyed to the Planning Officer:-

Reiterating the objections made to the previous application (case ref no. 14/01941/1; see appendix) (i) the access proposed was unsuitable and dangerous, (ii) the adverse impact of additional traffic in an already problematic area, where the effect of already approved development was yet to be measured, was unacceptable, (iii) the site was outside the policy boundary in an area of protected landscape.

Emphasising that the application did not satisfy planning policy criteria; the site was outside the policy boundary, it gave no consideration to the impact on the adjacent conservation area, it did not meet the tests for sustainability.

It was resolved that the proposal be accepted (unanimous).

PLANNING CONTROL (17.12.14) APPENDIX 1

Appendix

ASHWELL PARISH COUNCIL

Clerk Jane Porter (Mrs), 89 Back Street, Ashwell, Baldock, Herts, SG7 5PG Telephone/Fax 01462 743706 Email [email protected]

Mr Richard Tiffin 9th September 2014 Area Planning Officer Planning and Environment North Herts District Council Gernon Road Letchworth SG6 3JF

Dear Mr Tiffin Re Case Ref No: 14/01941/1 Land Adjacent To Ashridge Farm, Ashwell Street for Tingdene Developments Ltd. Outline Planning Permission: Outline Planning Application (all matters reserved, except for access) comprising the proposed development of up to 17 dwelling houses and a Multi-Use Games Area with associated access off Green Lane and egress via Station Road.

This application was considered at the recent meeting of the Parish Council Planning Committee.

It was resolved that a recommendation for refusal be conveyed to the Planning Officer.

Objections raised by parish councillors and members of the public are outlined in the extracts from the draft minutes below:-

Members of the public present: 31 parishioners. Correspondence received: Eight letters and emails to the Parish Council/copies of those to other authorities.

Cllr Peter Long expressed his regret that the Planning Authority ‘had a lack of joined up thinking’ when it came to land allocation for housing. The village had some 800- odd households and a population of about 1800. There was a very high proportion of single-person households; the average house size was 3 bedrooms. A district local plan would set a figure for the total number of houses required but not what kind of house these should be. It was noted that the Parish Council was progressing a Neighbourhood Plan which would cover these issues. Cllr Long also expressed his concerns re the reputation of the applicant, Tingdene Developments Ltd. Customer satisfaction data for similar new-build companies were

PLANNING CONTROL (17.12.14) APPENDIX 1 circa 90%, ie 1 in 10 customers complained. The figure for Tingdene, stated on their website, was 70% i.e 3 in 10 complained. The following concerns were expressed by members of the public present. (1) Proposed access was inadequate. (a) Station Road –proposed for egress.  The track was considered too narrow to be safely used by vehicles and pedestrians.  Despite the claim that the track would be one-way, it was currently used, and had been for over forty years, for access in two directions by the adjacent existing properties; it would thus remain two-way.  The sight lines were considered inadequate; parking in the area was problematic - many properties had no or inadequate off-street capacity and there were bus stops adjacent on both sides of the road.  The impact of additional traffic on existing properties adjacent to the track was considered unacceptable. (b) Green Lane –proposed for ingress.  The lane was a private, unmade and un-adopted track and was thus considered inadequate for the traffic that would be generated by additional housing or the proposed games area.  Despite the claim that the lane would be one-way, it was currently used for access in two directions by the existing properties including the 22 flats at the Maltings; it would thus remain two-way.  The lane was considered too narrow for any increase in traffic which would have an adverse impact on existing properties and the safety of pedestrians. (2) Adverse impact of additional traffic close to already problematic junction.  Both the proposed ingress and egress tracks were in close proximity to a junction with a record of problems including the fatality of a cyclist.  Pedestrian safety would be adversely affected by the increased traffic particularly school children crossing at this point to access the bus-stop outside no 54 Station Road (there was a pavement only on one side of the road at this point).  Parking in the area was already problematic particularly when there were activities at the adjacent Recreation Ground and sports pavilion (photographic evidence was shown).  Two developments in Station Road had recently been approved (17 dwellings at 61 Station Road and 15 dwellings at Walkdens); the impact of additional traffic generated by these had yet to be realised. (3) Site outside the policy boundary.  There was no justification for this development.  The proposals were considered to be unsustainable and not in accordance with national policy. (4) No demonstrated need for a multi-use games area and adverse impact of traffic generated by it.  The existing Recreation Ground provided facilities only a very short distance from the proposed site.  The village had recently benefitted from the development of facilities by the Sports &Tennis Club nearby at Ashwell Street; there were plans, and adequate land, to extend these as required. The Cycle Club also had extensive facilities nearby.  Concern was expressed that this area would be proposed for additional houses at a later stage. (5) Adverse impact of additional development.  There had recently been a significant number of developments approved. The impact of such a rapid increase in the size of the village over a very short period of time was difficult to absorb both socially and in terms of infrastructure.

PLANNING CONTROL (17.12.14) APPENDIX 1  Concerns re insufficient places at the school to cope with the numbers of children in the short-term. (6) Loss of prime agricultural land.

Parish councillors endorsed the concerns expressed by residents.

A proposal was made, and seconded, that a recommendation for refusal be conveyed to the Planning Officer on the grounds that (i) the access proposed was unsuitable and dangerous, (ii) the adverse impact of additional traffic in an already problematic area, where the effect of already approved development was yet to be measured, was unacceptable, (iii) the site was outside the policy boundary in an area of protected landscape.

It was resolved that the proposal be accepted (unanimous).

Please contact me if any clarification is required.

Yours sincerely,

Jane Porter (Mrs), Clerk Ashwell Parish Council

Cc District Councillor Andrew Young Mr Jeremy Pyatt, Tingdene Developments Ltd

PLANNING CONTROL (17.12.14)