Issue - meetings

RESOLVED: That application 23/02946/OP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager with the following amended Condition 9 and the addition of Conditions 12 to 14 as detailed in the Supplementary document.

“Condition 9:

A subsequent Reserved Matters application should include a site-wide sustainability strategy for consideration and approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority that addresses renewable energy, reducing carbon emissions and water conservation.  The agreed measures shall be implemented and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To reduce carbon emissions and promote the principles of sustainable construction and the efficient use of buildings in accordance with Policies SP9 and D1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.

Condition 12:

Before the commencement of any other works on the site, trees to be retained shall be protected by the erection of temporary chestnut paling or chain link fencing of a minimum height of 1.2 metres on a scaffolding framework, located at the appropriate minimum distance from the tree trunk in accordance with Section 4.6 of BS5837:2012 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations, unless in any particular case the Local Planning Authority agrees to dispense with this requirement. The fencing shall be maintained intact for the duration of all engineering and building works. No building materials shall be stacked or mixed within 10 metres of the tree. No fires shall be lit where flames could extend to within 5 metres of the foliage, and no notices shall be attached to trees.

Reason: To prevent damage to or destruction of trees to be retained on the site in the interests of the appearance of the completed development and the visual amenity of the locality, and to comply with Policy NE2 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.

Condition 13:

None of the trees to be retained on the application site shall be felled, lopped, topped, uprooted, removed or otherwise destroyed or killed without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the completed development and the visual amenity of the locality, and to comply with Policy NE2 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.

Condition 14:

Any tree felled, lopped, topped, uprooted, removed or otherwise destroyed or killed contrary to the provisions of the tree retention condition above shall be replaced during the same or next planting season with another tree of a size and species as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, unless the Authority agrees in writing to dispense with this requirement.

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the completed development and the visual amenity of the locality, and to comply with Policy NE2 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.”

Audio recording – 4 minutes 24seconds

The Planning Officer provided an update from the supplementary document included that:

·       The original report did not include any public representations, these had been read and considered during the application phrase. The supplement summarised the representations as, objections to the access point, concerns regarding maintenance of the vegetation and concerns regarding the possible effect upon the delivery of vehicular access for sites KB1 and KB2 in the Local Plan.

·       There had been a request for the integration of swift bricks and for an ecological survey, to consider the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) concerns. The Applicant had agreed to these, and they were highlighted in paragraph 4.3 of the report.

·       Additional Conditions had been added to the application relating to tree retention and protection.

·       The Applicant requested that Condition 9 be amended, this was considered and agreed.

·       The location site plan had been superseded with an updated access plan.

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 23/02946/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions:

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised that:

·       There would be no changes to the existing house on the site.

·       The site was adjacent to site KB1 to the north with the proposed access to KB1 to the east.

·       It was acknowledged that there would be Highways works, but the Highways Authority were satisfied with the visibility splays and did not believe that this site would compromise the access of any new developments on KB1 and KB2.

·       The application was for outline planning permission for nine dwellings, although this number could change.

·       The request form the Knebworth Parish Council for Section 106 (S106) money was considered but, it was felt that it did not meet the obligations requirement test. There had however, been a payment agreed to Highways for footpath improvements.

In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

·       Any land within the site boundary would be maintained by the Applicant, land outside the boundary within the highway was the responsibility of the Highways Team. The majority of the land surrounding the visibility splays was outside of the site boundary.

·       The Highways Team considered access for sites KB1 and KB2 and concluded that there was no conflict. Access for KB1 and KB2 would be considered when any applications were received.

·       No applications to develop sites KB1 and KB2 had been received, therefore this application had been considered on its own merits. Highways would then take into consideration any traffic impacts and assessments when considering their recommendations for sites KB1 and KB2.

·       Sites KB1 and KB2 were in the early stages of Master Planning.

·       It was a standard requirement in legislation that planning permission would expire after 3 years.

·       The request from the Parish Council for £20K to upgrade the Village Hall lighting was deemed unreasonable due to the small size of the site.

·       Should there be any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61