| 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 Jean Green, Councillor Lorna Kercher, Councillor Ian Mantle, Councillor Paul Marment, 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) John Chapman (Area Planning Officer) Joanne Cousins (Senior Planning Officer) Nurainatta Katevu (Property and Planning Lawyer) Susanne Gow (Committee and Member Services Officer) |
| ALSO PRESENT: | Councillors Tony Hunter and Lynda Needham and approximately 3 members of the public, including a member of the Press. |
| Meeting attachments |
Agenda 10.11.16 Audio Recording |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 48 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Paul Clark, Bill Davidson and Alan Millard. |
Noted | ||
| 49 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Control Committee held on 13 October 2016 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman, subject to the amended paragraph in Minute 46 on the bottom of p.4 and top of p.5 as follows: A Member proposed that the application be deferred because of issues that did not seem to have been considered when negotiating the Section 106 agreement. The Property and Planning Lawyer (PPL) stated that 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. A request was made that officers explore the possibility of a contribution from the applicant/developer towards safety improvements, primarily for the benefit of children in Garden Walk. |
Agreed | ||
| 50 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. |
Noted | ||
| 51 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) The Chairman welcomed the Committee, officers, general public, the Press and Member Advocate to this Planning Control Committee Meeting; (2) He 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) He asked those present to announce their name each time before speaking and speak directly into their microphones to assist members of the public in the Chamber and Committee Room 1 in the event it is used, to clearly hear the proceedings; (5) 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. This time limit would also apply to Members Advocate; (6) 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 | ||
| 52 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Chairman confirmed that the Member Advocate, Councillor Steve Jarvis who was to speak on Item 7, was present. |
Noted | ||
| 53 |
16/01891/1 - WYMONDLEY NURSING HOME, STEVENAGE ROAD, LITTLE WYMONDLEY, HITCHIN, SG4 7HT Report Location Plan The Area Planning Officer (JCh) presented the report, supported by a visual presentation. He stated that the only difference from the previous occasions, going back to 2000, that this application had been presented was that this planning application had an alteration to the car parking spaces, adding one additional car park, bringing the number up to 31 car parking spaces. He took the Committee through various views of the site, showing the side extension along the boundary, the existing car park along the eastern side, the block plan with the extension along the top and the extended car park to the south, elevations and the planting proposals along the eastern boundary, helping with screening. He referred Members to the last sentence of para 4.3.4 and read it out. The condition mentioned had, however, been omitted from the report and therefore he advised that it was necessary to add an additional condition to the recommendation and he read this out to Members (together with the reason for the condition). Subject to the additional condition, the officer recommended that the planning application be granted. Answering a question from a Member of the Committee, the Area Planning Officer assured the Committee that the applicant had stated that he would implement the planning application by adding the additional car parking space. Another Member opined that the extension was well hidden by the trees and he was in favour of the application. The officer was asked how many trees were to be felled and how many would be replanted in their place and he responded that the number of trees to be felled was unknown, but there were to be 23 new trees planted as shown on the plan together with a native hedgerow mix consisting of a variety of hedge plants. None of the original trees were subject to a Tree Preservation Order. A Member reminded the Committee that officers should try and negotiate two additional trees to be planted for every one established tree which was felled. The Chairman declared that this may not always be appropriate. The Committee was informed that the whole landscaping proposal was quite extensive, and the purpose was to enhance the locality rather than to detract from it by removing trees. On inspection of the landscape plan, he confirmed that it showed five trees were to be felled. He also read out the types of tree to be added. Members of the Planning Control Committee moved and seconded the recommendation and the application was granted unanimously. RESOLVED: That application 16/01891/1 be GRANTED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, subject to five conditions, including the following additional condition: Condition 5 The approved details of landscaping, as shown on drawing no. 298.1, shall be carried out before the end of the first planting season following either the first occupation of any of the bedrooms or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced during the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority agrees in writing to vary or dispense with this requirement. Reason: To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the completed development and the visual amenity of the locality. |
Agreed | ||
| 54 |
16/01352/1 - LAND REAR OF 1-4 POST OFFICE ROW, WESTON Report Location Plan The Senior Planning Officer (JCo) presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation. She indicated the views of the site, which was situated in the centre of the village, from various directions via the photographs taken, together with the site plan, the elevations, floor plans and the section showing the position of previous applications and the barn at No. 6 and the proposed landscaping along the boundary of No. 6. The position of the previous application was indicated and the rest was fairly self-explanatory. The site had been completely cleared for several years and had an outstanding planning permission for a single dwelling on the site. The officer pointed out the street scene elevation. The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer for her introduction and welcomed Councillor Steve Jarvis to address the Committee as a Member Advocate. Councillor Jarvis explained that he found himself in a rather unusual position on this application, as there had been many attempts to produce an acceptable development on this site and there was a current planning application that was granted at the end of that process. In terms of this application, he was inclined to support the view of Weston Parish Council about whether or not there was a satisfactory relationship to the buildings in Post Office Row and the building in Hitchin Road. However, he had since had an opportunity to view this in a great deal more detail by visiting the site. He stated that Members of the Committee who had been there would know that it was possible to view only a small proportion of it and it was difficult to establish exactly how the building related without going onto the site. Having done that, he was no longer concerned about that relationship and had there been time to do so, he would not have called in this planning application. So he found himself in the embarrassing position of wasting his fellow District Councillors' time. All he would do was to say that with the inclusion of the proposed condition to remove permitted development rights, which he thought was important, he was entirely happy with this application and he would like to invite the Planning Control Committee to approve it. The Chairman thanked Councillor Jarvis, and invited the Committee to put to him any questions of clarification that they had. Cllr Jarvis was asked whether the Parish Council now had no objections to the planning application and he stated that he had visited the site with the Chairman of Weston Parish Council and he had no objections to the application but the rest of the Parish Council had not had an opportunity to discuss it again, as their next meeting was that evening (10 November). He believed that the position was that technically the Parish Council still objected to this planning application. The Chairman brought the Committee to debate and a Member pointed out that there was an omission from the report on p.10, para 3.1 and the planning officer agreed that there had been, but that the Parish Council still objected to this application, although the applicants had made many amendments to try and overcome the Parish Council's objections. The Senior Planning Officer was asked to put up the PowerPoint slide demonstrating the ridge heights of the proposed side elevation of the dwelling. Going back to the representation from Weston Parish Council on p.10, the Chairman read out that "The proposal is clearly the size of a two storey building, albeit the developers claim it will not be significantly higher than the previously agreed bungalow . . .". The Senior Planning Officer explained that originally a larger bay that projected at the front with roof lights in the front elevation into a voided space was proposed, but there was no intention to have rooms in the roof, however, it resembled a two storey building. The roof lights had been taken out and the porch element reduced and it was clearly a single storey building, although there were still two roof lights in the rear section, lighting an area over the kitchen. The levels on the site were also being lowered. She confirmed that all the bedrooms were on the ground floor. A Member was reassured that the condition removing permitted development rights would prevent any further development without planning approval. The recommendation was moved and seconded subject to the eight conditions, and this was passed unanimously. RESOLVED: That application 16/01352/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the eight attached conditions. |
Agreed | ||
| 55 |
PLANNING APPEALS Planning Appeals The Development and Conservation Manager (DCM) presented his report in respect of Planning Appeals. He advised that an appeal decision which had come in too late for inclusion was for the solar farm at Three Houses Lane, Codicote, called in by the Secretary of State and refused on Green Belt grounds. The DCM informed the Committee that the only appeal decisions of note were Police Row, Therfield - a Committee decision; land adjacent to Windmill Cottage, Pottersheath Road, Welwyn; and another solar farm appeal - land opposite Wymondley Grid Station, St Ippolyts. Also too late to come on the list, was the former Black Squirrel, Gernon Road, a recent Committee decision against which an appeal had been lodged. RESOLVED: That the report on Planning Appeals be noted. The Chairman raised a point of interest to the Committee on the projection of timescale for appeals made - when would it come before the Inspector? He was informed that when an appellant lodges an appeal they have to inform the local planning authority and they do that straight away, but until it is made valid by the Planning Inspector it is not classified as an official appeal. Unfortunately there is a huge backlog and it can take 10/11 weeks until the Planning Inspectorate give it a start date. The Chairman stated that it can therefore be 10-12 months before an appeal goes before an Inspector. A Member enquired what was happening about Claypits Cottages and the Chairman explained that he understood that the applicant had appealed the enforcement notice at the very last moment, but it could be some months before official notification was received and that an appeal had been lodged and was valid, as the Development and Conservation Manager had just explained. The Development and Conservation Manager then gave a short explanation of the way in which appeals were presented and the Committee was told that the Planning Inspectorate had not confirmed the manner in which the appeals were presented and he then explained the process used. |
Noted | ||