| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | Council Chamber, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor D.J. Barnard (Chairman), Councillor Fiona Hill (Vice-Chairman), Councillor John Bishop, Councillor Paul Clark, Councillor Bill Davidson, Councillor Jean Green, Councillor Lorna Kercher, Councillor Ian Mantle, Councillor Alan Millard, Councillor M.R.M. Muir, Councillor Mike Rice, Councillor Adrian Smith, Councillor Harry Spencer - Smith and Councillor M.E. Weeks. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Simon Ellis (Development and Conservation Manager) Richard Tiffin (Area Planning Officer) Nurainatta Katevu (Property and Planning Lawyer) Susanne Gow (Committee and Member Services Officer) |
| ALSO PRESENT: | At the commencement of the meeting, Councillors Tony Hunter and David Levett plus approximately 8 members of the public, including the registered speaker. |
| Meeting attachments |
Agenda 13.10.16 Audio Recording of Meeting |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 40 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Paul Marment. |
Noted | ||
| 41 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Control Committee held on 18 August 2016 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 42 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. |
Noted | ||
| 43 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) The Chairman welcomed the Committee, officers, general public and speakers to this Planning Control Committee Meeting; (2) The Chairman announced that Members of the public and the Press may use their devices to film/photograph, or make a sound recording of the meeting, but he asked them to not use flash and to disable any beeps or other sound notifications that emitted from their devices; (3) The Chairman reminded Members and speakers that in line with Council policy, this meeting would be audio recorded and that speakers should use their microphones when speaking, as comments made without their use would not be recorded; (4) The Chairman clarified that each group of speakers would have a maximum of 5 minutes during which to address the Committee. The bell would sound after 4 1/2 minutes as a warning, and then again at 5 minutes to signal that the presentation must cease; (5) Members were reminded that any declarations of interest in respect of any business set out in the agenda should be declared as either a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest or Declarable Interest and were required to notify the Chairman of the nature of any interest declared at the commencement of the relevant item on the agenda. Members declaring a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest must withdraw from the meeting for the duration of the item. Members declaring a Declarable Interest which required they leave the room under Paragraph 7.4 of the Code of Conduct, could speak on the item, but must leave the room before the debate and vote. |
Noted | ||
| 44 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Chairman confirmed that the registered speaker was present. |
Noted | ||
| 45 |
16/00813/1 ODYSSEY HEALTH CLUB, OLD KNEBWORTH LANE, KNEBWORTH, SG2 8DU Report Plan Residential development of the site to provide 70 dwellings (14 x 2 bedroom houses; 19 x 3 bedroom houses and 9 x 4 bedroom houses; 16 x one bedroom apartments; 12 x 2 bedroom apartments), associated landscaping, car parking and the creation of a new vehicular access off the B197 Stevenage Road following demolition of the former indoor bowling building and several ancillary buildings. Rearrangement of the existing car parking provision for existing Odyssey Health and Racquet Club to provide 141 car parking spaces and alterations to existing vehicular access to Odyssey Health Club from Old Knebworth Lane. The Development and Conservation Manager (SE) presented his report, supported by a visual presentation. He informed the Committee that this residential scheme had been referred to the Planning Control Committee for determination as it was over 0.5 hectares in size. There were no updates to the report except for the last slide and the DCM went through the each slide in turn, showing the site from various angles and highlighting different aspects of the site and plans for the intended development, together with the new access to the site. He then pointed out the proposed layout including the block containing the 12 affordable housing apartments, amounting to 25%. Also indicated were the shared ownership units and the recreation park, the new vehicular access to the main road with a new roundabout which had a greater impact and also the hard standing which was to be returned to green spaces. The old access is deemed unsuitable for the residential development and the Health Club together. The last slide updated the presentation and was entitled Table 2, Completions, Permissions and Windfall Allowances, showing the potential source, number of dwellings and cumulative totals over the years from April 2011 to March 2015 available for Strategic Housing Market Allowances. It also showed the balance remaining to meet the objectively assessed housing needs (OAHN) for North Hertfordshire between 2011 and 2031. The Committee was advised that if permission for 70 dwellings was granted outline planning permission, this would contribute towards the windfall allowance and although outside the North Hertfordshire Local Plan, was not irrelevant in terms of how many homes it would deliver to meet the objectively assessed housing need. As there were no public speakers, the Committee then proceeded to the debate and vote, as follows. They began by discussing whether there were enough car parking spaces for the residential development and concluded that they were sufficient. The point was raised that it would cause noise disturbance for the residents when the Odyssey Health Club held events, but the Development and Conservation Manager (DCM) explained that it was more likely to be the reverse. This could be examined by the Environmental Protection Team and if necessary, conditions regarding noise surveys could be applied. All housing was to be managed by the registered provider, normally a housing association, in order to comply with Section 106 criteria. One Member commented that viability assessments could be manipulated and asked whether the assessment documents could be distributed to District Councillors. He was informed that due to sensitive information, this was not suitable to be in the public domain. On being asked whether the green space on the development will be protected, the DCM declared that it was and that the Health Club would need planning permission to carry out any alterations to this. The open space must be managed including both the unit of previously-used land and the large area of open space. A legal agreement (covenant) would dictate what can and cannot go on this land. A Member commended the architect for the proposed tree planting, which was a vast improvement and softened the appearance of the car park. It was revealed that two bus stops may be required for the residents to be able to use public transport, Highways stating that the cost would be in the region of £25,000. A layby may also be needed. Finally, the question was raised regarding those garages which did not comply with the necessary size and it was confirmed that they could be enlarged and converted for residential use. The Committee proceeded to the vote and the planning application was unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That application 16/00813/1 be GRANTED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager. |
Agreed | ||
| 46 |
16/01477/1 WEATHERHEAD MARK LTD, GARDEN WALK, ROYSTON, SG8 7HT Report Plan Outline planning application (all matters reserved except for access) for residential development of up to 19 dwellings. The Area Planning Officer (RT) presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation. He went through each slide in turn, showing the site from various angles and highlighting different aspects, including retail buildings very close to surrounding residential property and the proposed site plan. It was explained that the aim was to reflect Royston itself and improve the character of the site. The Chairman welcomed Mrs Sheila Porter and invited her to address the Committee and she reiterated that she and her husband had no objections to the development of the site but would like the Planning Control Committee to note their concerns as to the reservations held due to the close proximity of their property. She explained that she had spoken at length with the Area Planning Officer and had written to the Council on this subject. She sought the Committee's assurance that the access to the development would remain in Garden Walk and not in either Perry Drive or Mortimer Road in which her dwelling was situated. She declared that quite often a developer would apply for a change of access once the planning application had been granted. Mrs Porter stated that the change of use of this site needed to be acquired, as the new and modern farm machinery depot with sales and workshop had now become so large that Garden Walk could no longer be used as part of an industrial area. She explained that Garden Walk was a road approximately 20ft wide, with narrow uneven paving and three schools in close proximity to the prospective site, making it a danger. She declared that she wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the industrial sheds that lined the 160ft boundary of her property, one, of considerable size, which contained asbestos in the roof, guttering and drainpipes. The Law stated that this would need to be removed following extremely strict safety rules. One of the trees on her land, a 150-year old majestic beech tree, had grown into an industrial shed beside it, so removal of the asbestos would need to be done extremely carefully for health and safety reasons. Finally, Mrs Porter informed the Committee that the land fell away from the boundary of her property from approximately 6 inches to 3 to 4 feet and was covered in brambles and nettles, raising the possibility of soil subsidence, which would affect the garden of her property. The garden had recently been renovated and landscaped at great expense, together with the front drive of the dwelling, which was approximately 40ft in length. The Chairman thanked Mrs Porter for her presentation and advised that a legally licensed contractor would need to remove the asbestos to a secure location. The Area Planning Officer confirmed that access to the development site would always likely be from Garden Walk and said that the best use for this area would be residential. Indiscriminate removal of asbestos was a danger - an informative had been included in the report. With regard to the treatment of trees beyond the site boundary, he proposed that proper regard was made and care taken of where the dwellings might go on receipt of a reserved matters application. The Committee discussion raised such points as whether the site should contain 20 dwellings rather than 19; would the mature hedges and trees surrounding the site be retained? The Committee was informed that details such as these could not be determined for an outline planning application - they would have to wait until a full reserved matters planning application came before the Planning Control Committee. Several Members asked for clarification of the difference between an outline planning application and a reserved matters planning application and this was explained by the Area Planning Officer. The comment was also made that it was hoped that affordable housing would be shown on the reserved matters planning application amongst the detail, layout, appearance etc. The APO explained that at up to 19 units there would be no possibility of affordable housing at the reserved matters stage. It was stated that the emerging Local Plan should be given some weight and it should be determined under the threshold applicable under that Plan. The question was asked whether it had sufficient weight to set aside Policy 29A and the reply was that it was a judgment at this point in time, but because little weight was thus far attributable to the emerging Plan, appeal decisions elsewhere in the District and the time at which the application came in, the APO considered that more weight should be given to the saved Local Plan policy. The Vice-Chairman commented as follows: - NHS England, and according to planning officers also CCGs, do not comment on any application for under 100 dwellings. In her opinion this is appalling, considering the potential effect on health services in the area, and is unacceptable; - Asbestos should be a condition, not just an informative; - There is an informative regarding the hours working on the site from 8am to 6pm. She felt that lorries accessing the site at school pick-up and drop-off times would be a disaster and create a dangerous situation for traffic and pedestrians, especially children, due to the resultant congestion and parking issues; - There are schools and a football club in Garden Walk. Could there be a Section 106 contribution towards safety measures, particularly for the benefit of children in Garden Walk? The Area Planning Officer commented that the "hours of working conditions" could be imposed at the reserved matters stage. At the site as it is used now, crossing issues do not arise and Highways have not raised them. However, the problem could be resolved subject to officers having discussions with Herts County Council Highways officers, using Section 106 funds for a crossing. This could be done before issuing planning permission. However there is currently no crossing planned. The Vice-Chairman proposed that such a discussion takes place should outline planning permission be granted. 20mph signs had been implemented as a first step after the feasibility study, which had already taken place. The Chairman asked whether the buildings could be demolished at the present time, despite the danger from the asbestos, and this was confirmed although these were also matters beyond the Committee's control. Environmental Health should be alerted if residents considered that demolition of barns was not being carried out by suitably qualified contractors. A Member proposed that when the reserved matters planning application came before the Committee, there should be no deliveries to the site before 9am, due to the nearby schools. He also stated that the trees at the rear of the site should not be felled. He was informed that these trees would be protected by reserved matters. A Member proposed that the application be deferred because no affordable housing was included, but the Property and Planning Lawyer (PPL) pointed out that there was no issue or comment from Highways and no scheme in place for a crossing of any sort. The outline permission was for up to 19 dwellings, and to defer it expecting more units to be added to bring it up to the level of affordable housing, would mean that there would be a potential for appeal. The PPL then asked what would happen if the request was refused. The Committee was happy that, if this request was declined because it could not be justified, the matter could then proceed as per the original resolution and recommendation. The outline application went to the vote and was passed. RESOLVED: That application 16/01932/1 be GRANTED outline planning permission, including the request that officers are asked to explore the possibility of a contribution from the applicant/developer towards safety improvements, primarily for the benefit of children in Garden Walk. |
Agreed | ||
| 47 |
PLANNING APPEALS Planning Appeal Decisions Appeal Decision - Land to rear of Reed House Appeal Decision - Sootfield Green Cost Decision - Sootfield Green Appeal Decision - Mercia Road Appeal Decision - Broadwater Avernue Appeal Decision - Melbourn Road Appeal Decision - Fairhaven Farm Cost Decision - Fairhaven Farm The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of Planning Appeals. He advised that, since the 18 August 2016 meeting of the Committee, two appeals had been dismissed, for one of which the High Court had re-determined the Appeal Decision. In addition, a further four appeals lodged had been allowed, as detailed in the report. RESOLVED: That the report on Planning Appeals be noted. |
Noted | ||