Issue - meetings

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Reserved Matters application for approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for outline application 22/02942/OP granted 18.09.2024 for 10 dwellings.

RESOLVED: That Application 24/02624/RM be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the additional Condition 5, as follows:

‘Condition 5:

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended no development as set out in Class B of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order, (or any subsequent Statutory Instrument which revokes, amends and/or replaces those provisions) shall be carried out without first obtaining a specific planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Given the nature of this development, the Local Planning Authority considers that development which would normally be "permitted development" should be retained within planning control in the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.’

Audio recording – 4 minutes 35 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 24/02624/RM and advised that:

·             An amended landscaping plan which included boundary treatment along the north, south and west parts of the site in the form of a 1.8m close board fence had been received.

·             Because of this, the recommendation at paragraph 4.3.26 in the report to add a boundary treatment condition was no longer necessary.

·             They had received an amended site plan with a two-meter-wide green corridor along the northern boundary of the site as required by condition 8 of the outline permission. The Highways Authority had raised no objection to these details.

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 24/02624/RM supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

·             Councillor Ruth Brown

·             Councillor Louise Peace

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

• Permitted Development Rights (PDR) had not been withdrawn from the outline permission for the development.
• The developer had submitted a pre-construction energy and sustainability statement as part of the outline permission which included proposals for solar panels and ground source heat pumps on the development.
• A swept path drawing had been received and a means of access had been included within the outline permission. 

Councillor Ruth Brown proposed to grant permission, and this was seconded by Councillor Ian Mantle.

Councillor Ruth Brown proposed the amendments, and these were seconded by Councillor Louise Peace, as follows:

The following Members took part in the debate on the amendment:

·             Councillor Ruth Brown

·             Councillor Louise Peace

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Mick Debenham

·             Councillor Val Bryant

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·             Councillor Amy Allen

The following points were raised as part of the debate on the amendment:

·             Having developments in the district with a high percentage of 3-bed dwellings and 1 to 2-bed dwellings was desirable and the already undesirable housing mix of all 4-bed dwellings on the proposed development would be made worse if they were developed into 5-bed or 6-bed dwellings.

·             The affordability of the properties would be impacted if they were extended into 5-bed or 6-bed dwellings.

·             Adding one or two bedrooms to each property would increase the number of vehicles used by future occupiers which would lead to more traffic and potentially congestion in the area.

·             Removing PDR would not stop future occupiers from applying for planning permission to increase the number of bedrooms in the dwellings.  

·             Roof extensions, particularly dormers would impact the appearance of the dwellings and cause harm in this aspect to the existing site.

·             There was more concern over additional bedrooms being added through the enlargement of roof space rather than outbuildings or extensions as they would need planning permission if they were larger than a certain size.  

In response to points raised in the debate on the amendment, the Principle Planning Officer advised that:

·             PDR only came into effect once a dwelling had been occupied, not during the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 162