Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors John Booth, Bill Davidson, Jean Green and Adrian Smith.

Councillor Val Shanley was substituting for Councillor John Booth.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors John Booth, Bill Davidson, Jean Green and Adrian Smith.

Councillor Val Shanley was substituting for Councillor John Booth.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 20 April 2017.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 20 April 2017 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chairman.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 20 April 2017 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chairman.

Members should notify the Chairman of other business which they wish to be discussed by the Committee at the end of the business set out in the agenda. They must state the circumstances which they consider justify the business being considered as a matter of urgency.

The Chairman will decide whether any item(s) raised will be considered.

There was no other business notified.

There was no other business notified.

Members are 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 are 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 requires they leave the room under Paragraph 7.4 of the Code of Conduct, can speak on the item, but must leave the room before the debate and vote.

(1)    The Chairman announced that Members of the public and the press may use their devices to film/photograph, or do a sound recording of the meeting, but she asked them to not use flash and to disable any beeps or other sound notifications that emitted from their devices.  In addition, the Chairman had arranged for the sound at this particular meeting to be recorded;

(2)   The Chairman reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question;

(3)   The Chairman asked that, for the benefit of any members of the public present at the meeting, Officers announce their name and their designation to the meeting when invited to speak.

(1)    The Chairman announced that Members of the public and the press may use their devices to film/photograph, or do a sound recording of the meeting, but she asked them to not use flash and to disable any beeps or other sound notifications that emitted from their devices.  In addition, the Chairman had arranged for the sound at this particular meeting to be recorded;

(2)   The Chairman reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question;

(3)   The Chairman asked that, for the benefit of any members of the public present at the meeting, Officers announce their name and their designation to the meeting when invited to speak.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public. At the time of preparing the agenda no requests to speak had been received.

Any public participation received within the agreed time scale will be notified to Members as soon as is practicable

The Chairman confirmed that the 16 registered speakers and 3 Member Advocates were present.

The Chairman confirmed that the 16 registered speakers and 3 Member Advocates were present.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Reserved matters application for approval of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to serve a residential development of 78 dwellings (31 affordable and 47 private), pursuant to outline planning application 15/01618/1 granted 27.5.16 (as amended).

RESOLVED:  That Reserved Matters application 16/02256/1 be GRANTED, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, including the amended condition 6 below:

Condition 6

Before commencement of any part of the development, the works identified on the ‘in principle’ site Drawing number WIE11697-SA-05-0026-A01, a detailed ‘Y’ junction access layout shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the Highway Authority, which shows all geometries associated with the proposed access arrangements including kerb radii, lane widths, visibility splays etc. The ultimate design being technically approved in writing by the Highway Authority (in conjunction with the Local Planning Authority) prior to commencement of any works on site.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining highway safety and to maintain the rural character of the area.

Reserved matters application for approval of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to serve a residential development of 78 dwellings (31 affordable and 47 private), pursuant to outline planning application 15/01618/1 granted 27.5.16.

The Development and Conservation Manager reminded Members that the Committee had resolved to grant outline permission for up to 82 dwellings on this site at the meeting held on 17 December 2015.

Planning permission was granted in May last year, following completion of the section 106 agreement. 

This application was for the reserved matters of access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping, providing 78 dwellings and was reported to Members at the Planning Control Committee meeting held on 16 March 2017.

The item was deferred by the Committee to enable further negotiations between officers and the applicant to endeavour to address Members’ concerns regarding the urbanising effect of the roundabout and terraced houses to the site frontage and to consider the alternative of a T or Y junction, instead of the roundabout.

The Development and Conservation Manager introduced the report, supported by a visual presentation. The slides presented were as follows:

·      Location Plan - The site lay to the east of the village and comprised two fields of land adjacent Elm Tree Farm, of 4.4 hectares in area;

·      Previous Layout Plan – This was the previous layout of the proposed development with access via a proposed mini roundabout from Holwell Road and a terrace of six houses set to the frontage;

·       Layout Plan – Roundabout Option – This was the newly proposed layout, which remained at 78 dwellings.  In place of the previous terrace were two sets of semi-detached dwellings set back, with an open space and footpaths to the frontage, together with a single storey dwelling adjacent the existing terrace of The Twelve Apostles. A third pair of semi’s replaced the previous open space to the rear of a parking court;

·       Layout Plan – Y Junction Option – This was the newly proposed layout with a Y junction as means of access instead of the previous roundabout. The Y junction had been confirmed as viable in highway safety terms, just as the roundabout was.  Therefore, Members had the choice of either option but due to the aesthetic benefits of the Y junction and that this was already part of the character of the village, officers considered this to be the preferred access option;

·       Y Junction detail – this was the Y junction detail provided to the Highway Authority showing the triangular section which would be grass verge;

·       Bungalow to frontage – this was the bungalow proposed to be adjacent the existing terrace cottages fronting Holwell Road;

·       Semi-detached to frontage – These were semi-detached pairs to replace the previous terrace set back and with open space to front;

·       House type L – this was of the largest in footprint, proposed to the southern end of the site;

·       Apartment block – this was one of the three proposed apartment blocks for part provision of the affordable housing, reflective of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Details reserved by Condition 6 (Construction Management Plan) of planning permission reference no. 15/01618/1 granted on 27 May 2016.

RESOLVED:  That, the determination of planning application 17/00335/1DOCbe DEFERRED, to enable further time to interrogate recently submitted information, the applicant to submit more detailed information regarding mitigation measures and the suggested direct cross country route to be explored in more detail.

Councillor Henry and Shanley left the meeting.

The Chairman announced that there would be a 10 minute recess.

Details reserved by Condition 6 (Construction Management Plan) of planning permission reference no. 15/01618/1 granted on 27 May 2016.

The Development and Conservation Manager introduced the report, supported by a visual presentation that included plans demonstrating the routes for construction traffic.

He advised that there were a lot of updates to report as follows:

A Construction Traffic Access Appraisal submitted on behalf of Pirton Parish Council

·      The CALA Homes proposed Construction Traffic Management Plan suggested that up to 30 construction vehicles per day of various sizes would access the site. However, this would notoccur throughout the whole construction period.

     Construction traffic should be restricted to weekday off-peak hours 09.30 to 15.00 resulting in, on average, 5 two-way construction vehicles an hour or 1 vehicle every 12 minutes spread across the off-peak period.

·      Baseline traffic flows on Holwell Road indicated less than 1 vehicle per minute in each direction in 2020 in the peak periods.

·      The shortest route from the site to the ‘A’ road network was via Holwell, being approximately 2 miles or 5 minutes by motor vehicle.

·      Routes via Pirton to the nearest ‘A’ road would be 3.5 miles or 7 minutes to the A505, Hitchin, 5.5 miles or 13 minutes via Shillington to the A600 or 5.2 miles or 10 minutes to the A6 at Barton-le-Clay.

·      Traffic calming in Holwell village appeared to already manage traffic effectively and only one slight personal injury accident (PIA) had been recorded in 18 years (1999-2016).

During the same period, the route via Pirton to the A505 had experienced over 50 PIAs including 7 in Pirton, the route via Shillington had experienced over 40 PIAs including 4 in Pirton and the route to the A6 has experienced just under 40 PIAs.

·      All routes to the site were constrained in some form. The route via Holwell was traffic calmed in the village. There was no traffic calming on any of the Pirton routes.

·      The route via Holwell had narrow sections, especially at Waterloo Lane. Localised widening could be provided to improve passing space, temporary warning signs could be installed and vegetation management would improve visibility.

·      There was sufficient space for construction vehicles to wait at the eastern end of Holwell Road (outside Holwell village) and be in contact with the site manager to ensure construction traffic vehicles did not need to pass others travelling to and from the site.

·      In total, 13 properties in Holwell on the route had no off-street parking, and 3 had no access to a footway (in Waterloo Lane).

·      Any construction traffic route via Pirton would need to pass a row of 10 properties that have no footway and front doors that open onto the carriageway. These properties also relied on using the carriageway for parking and waste bin collection.

·      Routing through Pirton to the A505 via Royal Oak Lane and Walnut Tree Road would pass over 50 properties that had no access to any footway.

·      Routing in Pirton to either A600 or A6 via West Lane would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline application with all matters reserved other than strategic point of access onto Royston Road for the erection of up to 100 dwellings and a new shop (A1 use) with associated public open space, landscaping and drainage.

The Chairman had previously advised that this application had been withdrawn.

Outline application with all matters reserved other than strategic point of access onto Royston Road for the erection of up to 100 dwellings and a new shop (A1 use) with associated public open space, landscaping and drainage.

The Chairman had previously advised that this application had been withdrawn.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

3/4 storey building to provide 71 x 2-bedroom assisted living apartments together with communal facility and amenity area, provision of refuse & cycle store and 76 parking spaces for residents, staff and visitors and all associated works following demolition of existing 39 unit sheltered apartment scheme (as amended by plans received on 5th April 2017).

RESOLVED:  That application 16/02915/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, the removal of Condition 16 and the amended informative below:

Informative on Waste and Recycling

That the final bullet point to read:

“The capacity requirements as per NHDC's developer guidelines are:

45L mixed recycling per resident

       10L paper recycling per resident

       20L food recycling per resident

       40L general waste per resident”.

3/4 storey building to provide 71 x 2-bedroom assisted living apartments together with communal facility and amenity area, provision of refuse & cycle store and 76 parking spaces for residents, staff and visitors and all associated works following demolition of existing 39 unit sheltered apartment scheme (as amended by plans received on 5th April 2017).

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that there were three updates to the report as follows:     

·      Hertfordshire County Council had removed their requirement for fire hydrants therefore condition 16 was no longer necessary;

·      The Unilateral Undertaking had been completed with financial contributions for library services to Hertfordshire County Council;

·      The Informative on waste and recycling regarding capacity requirements in line with guidelines should be changed to be 20L food recycling per resident and 40L general waste per resident.

The Development and Conservation Manager introduced the report, supported by a visual presentation.

He advised that officers had worked tirelessly to seek amendments to the development in order to reduce the impact on the neighbouring properties.

Mr Alsitwari addressed the Committee in objection to application 16/02915/1

Mr Alsitwari thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee and advised that he lived in one of the house affected by the scale of this development.

The road leading to the development was quite narrow and was sometimes difficult to get through.

He stated that the development was in violation of his human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights article 1 and article 8.

Article 8 stated that everyone had the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence.

The proposed building would violate his privacy as many flats would face directly into his and his children’s bedrooms through 13 windows in 7 apartments. This would impact greatly on his privacy as it would force the family to have the blinds down most of the time to maintain privacy, this would also have an impact on the health of the children.

Article 1 stated that every natural or legal person was entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

His house was his possession and the proposed development would make it less enjoyable due to the following:

·      The impact on the amount of sunlight received after blocking it with a five storey building opposite the house that would be quite imposing;

·      The impact on his young child’s development and health during the construction period, as they were of pre school age and slept during the day;

·      The impact on the health of the family during the demolition period due to the dust and fine materials that would be deposited in his house.

     There would be a detrimental impact on the house price with an independent estate agent advising that the price of the house would be devalued by at least 10 percent and little chance of finding a buyer during the construction period of two to three years.

There would be an impact on local roads with the road leading to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Two storey side extension to create additional 3 bed dwelling and single storey rear and side extension to existing dwelling.

RESOLVED:  That planning application 17/00525/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Two storey side extension to create additional 3 bed dwelling and single storey rear and side extension to existing dwelling.

The Area Planning Officer advised that there was one update to the report in that the applicant’s agents had requested clarification regarding the description of the development in order to reflect the plans that had been submitted and consulted on.

The description of the proposal on page 113 of the agenda report should therefore read:

“Two storey side and rear extension and part single storey side extension to create an additional 3 bed dwelling and two storey rear and single storey side and rear extension to existing dwelling. Roof alterations to existing dwelling.”

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation.

The Area Planning Officer reminded the Committee that permission had already been granted for a similar development, to sub-divide the existing plot and provide two storey side and rear extensions.

This application had been carefully assessed on its merits, in particular the direct impact on the surrounding properties in terms of overbearing impact, loss of light and privacy and the impact on the street scene and the conclusion was that there were no significant impacts that would warrant a refusal of planning permission. In addition the parking provision met the required standards and it should be noted that there were no highway objections raised by the Highway Authority.      

Mr Mike Wells addressed the Committee in objection to application 17/00525/1

Mr Wells thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee and informed Members that he was speaking in behalf of neighbours in Sandover Close.

The residents of the close had never objected to the extension of number 8 provided it was done as one house, sympathetically to the neighbours and in keeping with what had already been done.

Sandover Close was a road of detached houses, however in December 2016 permission was granted to redevelop No. 8 into two three-bedroomed semi-detached properties. Not content with this, within 14 weeks the developers were back with new proposals for a pair of much larger Semis.

The footprint of the building in this new Application had more than doubled the existing Planning Consent with two additional rooms planned in the attics. Although these attic rooms were not called bedrooms that is how they would potentially be used, thus each property will go from one double and two single bedrooms to four double bedrooms.

Part of the concern was in respect of the parking arrangements for the development. The plans showed two parking spaces for each house and the pair of tandem spaces for 8a were now being encroached on by the new utility room and the relocation of the front door and porch making the spaces impractical to get a car door open. There were also fire hydrant and gas hydrant marker posts, not shown on the plans, which further limited the width of the drive way.

In any case Policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Two storey rear extension. Single storey front porch extension (amended plans received 07/04/2017).

RESOLVED: That planning application 17/00135/1HH be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Two storey rear extension. Single storey front porch extension (amended plans received 07/04/2017).

Prior to the commencement of the item Councillor Mike Rice declared a declareable interest in that he knew the applicant personally.

The Property and Planning Lawyer advised that the Councillor had to decide whether his relationship with the applicant would in any way bias his decision. If he decided that it would compromise his decision nuking abilities, he could speak on the item and leave the room during the debate and vote.

Councillor Rice advised that his relationship with the applicant would not compromise his decision and therefore he would remain in the room and take part in the debate and vote.

The Area Planning Officer advised that there was one update to the report and drew attention to Paragraph 4.2.1 of the report that stated:

“The Parish Council has been re-notified of the amendments but no further representation has been received.”

This was incorrect as the Parish Council had sent a further letter dated 25 April 2017 with comments.

The Parish Council recognised that amendments had been made to the proposals but still raised concerns on two grounds:

·      That the proposed development would be an inappropriate development and also out of keeping with the street scene in the Conservation Area of the village:

·      That the window details are not sympathetic to the dwelling contrary to Policy 28 of the local plan.

The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the proposals had been amended from those originally submitted to delete the first floor side extension and reduce the height of the new rear gable. The amount of glazing has also been reduced at ground and first floor level and the amount of grey cladding reduced. 

The Conservation Officer had assessed the scheme and considered that the amended proposals were a significant improvement and that the proposals would not be harmful to the Conservation Area. It was also noted that Historic England did not wish to comment on the scheme but deferred to the advice of the local Conservation Officer.

Whilst the concerns of the Parish Council were noted, the officer’s view was that the proposals did not harm the visual amenities of the area or were harmful to the character of the Conservation Area.

Mr Charles Speakman (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of application 17/00135/1HH

Mr Speakman thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee and informed Members that the plans were the result of proactive discussions with the Planning Officer, following concerns over the form of the initial submission in regard to the bulk of the side extension and the glazing and balcony.

The initial concerns had been listened to and these elements had been removed, which had simplified the form of and shape of the structure and he felt that the alterations, particularly the removal of the low level glazing would result in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of three x 4 bedroom dwellings with associated garages and parking spaces, widening of existing vehicular access onto Bury Lane and ancillary works following demolition of existing barn and stables.

RESOLVED: That planning application 17/00553/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the additional Condition 18 below:

Condition 18

“No development shall take place until details of fire hydrants or other measures to protect the development from fire have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include provision of the mains water services for the development whether by means of existing water services, new mains or extension to or diversion of existing services where the provision of fire hydrants is considered necessary. The proposed development shall not be occupied until such measures have been implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the necessary infrastructure for the development is in place and to meet the requirements of the fire authority.”

Erection of three x 4 bedroom dwellings with associated garages and parking spaces, widening of existing vehicular access onto Bury Lane and ancillary works following demolition of existing barn and stables.

The Area Planning Officer advised that there were two updates to the reports as follows:

1.   Amended plans had been received on 10 May 2017. It was therefore recommended that the description of the development be amended to include the words:

“as amended by drawing numbers 422A, 425A, 426A, 427A, 428A and 429A received on 10 May 2017.”

The amendments were largely cosmetic but did improve the overall appearance of the dwellings in this rural location and included:

·      Increased use of feather boarding on north east elevation;

·      Reduced size of two dormer windows and another two replaced with roof lights;

·      Reduced size and extent of glazed doors;

·      Bat boxes and bat tiles shown clearly on plans.

2.   Hertfordshire County Council Fire & Rescue Service had requested a condition requiring details of fire hydrants or other measures to protect the development from fire.

     This condition was considered reasonable given the location of the development from Bury Lane and it was recommended that this condition be attached if permission is granted. 

The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation.

Parish Councillor Helena Gregory (Codicote Parish Council) addressed the Committee in objection to application 17/00553/1.

Parish Councillor Gregory thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee and informed the Committee that Codicote Parish Council simply could not support, or agree with the recommendations in the report.

The application did not meet the criteria for acceptable development within the green belt and the proposed dwellings would have a significantly greater impact than the existing structures.

She doubted that the Planning Officer had satisfactorily familiarised themself with the site, as throughout the report the location of the area of land and how it sat in relation to adjacent properties, had consistently been consistently misrepresented,

The report stated that open countryside lay to the west of the site and that a large timber building and grazing land lay to the west, In fact this site lay on the north eastern fringe of the village, so the open countryside was to the east of the site and the Bury and Bury Farmhouse lay to the west and south west of the site These mistakes were repeated elsewhere in the report, which led to the conclusion that adequate research had been wanting.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the development would have no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than existing building, however the site was mainly viewed form the footpaths that traversed the field towards Rabley Heath and the existing barn, albeit a functional timber and concrete structure, was built ant an angle that did not intrude unnecessarily on the landscape. The proposed residential dwellings intruded further into current grazing pasture and were in a horseshoe formation, the main expanse of which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Reserved matters application for approval of appearance and landscaping for outline planning application 15/01724/1 granted 27.8.15. for one x 4 bedroom detached dwelling.

RESOLVED:  That planning application 17/00264/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Reserved matters application for approval of appearance and landscaping for outline planning application 15/01724/1 granted 27.8.15. for one x 4 bedroom detached dwelling.

The Planning Officer advised that this was a reserved matters application for one detached four bedroomed dwelling for which the matters of layout, scale and access had been determined in the outline application. The reserved matters for this application were regarding landscaping and appearance.

The Planning Officer introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation.

Parish Councillor Dr Bob Davidson (Barkway Parish Council) addressed the Committee in objection to application 17/00264/1.

Parish Councillor Davidson thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee and informed Members that the application was originally presented to Barkway Parish Council as a four bedroomed residence which was a necessity for the current owners of the Tally Ho in order to help them manage the business. As soon as permission was granted this was turned over to developers and the owners continued to manage the pub from afar.

The Parish Council originally supported the application for those reasons but, whilst this was not a planning consideration, had they been aware of what would happen, they would have changed their recommendations for the original planning application.

The Parish Council was concerned about the proximity of the sewerage farm and the poultry farm, which were within 200 metres of the site.

As the dwelling would not be related to the Pub, this could become problematic to the residents.

Parking continued to be a concern for residents and road users, particularly with cars parking on the perimeter of the site, with the police being called on numerous occasions to address dangerous parking.

The owners of the pub had assured them that, if they were granted planning permission, they would be able to manage parking on the site, but this would no longer seem to be the case.

The entrance to the site was regularly used as a parking place, with cars parking in the areas to the north and south of the site, on a restricted section of the road that regularly suffered from excessive traffic speeds in both directions past the junction and the pub.

The application met the minimum standards for parking, but this was not enough for a four bedroomed house in this location in a village.

It was a worry that any family living in the proposed property would face problems from noise from the public house and this may risk the viability of the business, which was the only public house left in the village.

Parish Councillor Davidson concluded by summarising the objections as follows:

·      The inappropriate positioning of the property facing onto the pub;

·      The exacerbation of parking problems in and around the public house;

·      The additional problems relating to the creation of a new entrance;

·      The public health risks of the proximity of the poultry farm and sewerage works as well as the noise from the adjoining public house;

He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Two 3-bedroom semi detached dwellings with associated parking and access off High Street (as amended by plans received on 07/02/2017).

RESOLVED: That, the determination of planning application 16/03082/1be DEFERRED, to enable the following:

(1)    To ask Anglian Water for more guidance in respect of the sewerage treatment plant;

(2)    To challenge Environmental Health advice regarding noise emanating from the public health and odours from the poultry farm and sewerage treatment works;

(3)    To ask the applicant to consider the re-orientation of the proposed houses to face the road.

Two 3-bedroom semi detached dwellings with associated parking and access off High Street (as amended by plans received on 07/02/2017).

The Planning Officer introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation.

The Planning Officer advised that there was one update to the report in that she had consulted Anglian Water regarding the application and had received the following response:

“The Developer Services Pre-Development team provide comments on planning applications for major proposals of 10 dwellings or more, or if an industrial or commercial development, more than 0.5 ha. As your query is below this threshold we will not be providing comments.”

Parish Councillor Dr Bob Davidson (Barkway Parish Council) addressed the Committee in objection to application 16/03082/1

Parish Councillor Dr Davidson thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee and referred Members to the presentation he made earlier regarding application 17/00264/1 (Minute 13 refers) and stated that all of the issues raised during that presentation applied to this application.

In addition, car parking issues relating to this application would be more of an issue as this application was for two three bedroomed dwellings with the potential for six vehicles, which would be over spilling onto  a section od road that caused great concern.

The properties would be facing onto the pub, which would detract from the character of the village where properties generally faced the road.

The concerns remained, as with the previous application, regarding the dwellings being within 400 metres of the sewerage works and the poultry farm.

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor Dr Davidson for his presentation.

District Councillor Gerald Morris addressed the Committee as a Member Advocate in objection to application 16/03082/1.

Councillor Morris thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee and advised that the application to build two houses on this site would have the same negative effect on the pub’s future as the previous application (Minute 13 refers).

Similarly the site remained only 200 metres from the sewerage plant and the poultry farm with the same comments and concerns he had made regarding application 17/00264/1. However having two houses on the plot would likely double the likelihood of environmental health problems.

Two Houses would likely mean more children living in a house facing a pub and its car park and if these house were built facing the road, this could mitigate the issue of noise from the pub and would be in keeping with most houses in the village.

As with the previous application, the owner of the poultry farm was not informed of or consulted regarding this application.

The poultry farm was located in a sensitive location and the owner was very concerned that even more cumulatively, this proposal for two houses could jeopadise his business. The potential problems for his business were increased with more houses.

Councillor Morris reminded the Committee that there had been a previous application for a development nearby which the NHDC Planning Policy Department said that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development - Confirmation that there is no class of development appropriate for the land unless acquired by Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd.

RESOLVED:  That, in respect of application 17/00743/1, a certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development be GRANTED.

Confirmation that there is no class of development appropriate for the land unless acquired by Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation.

In response to questions he advised that the certificate considered the current situation and that this related to a compensation issue.

RESOLVED:  That, in respect of application 17/00743/1, a certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development be GRANTED.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

RESOLVED: That the report on Planning Appeals be noted.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report entitled Planning Appeals.  He advised that, since the last meeting of the Committee, three planning appeals had been lodged and two planning appeal decisions had been received, all as detailed in the report.

RESOLVED: That the report on Planning Appeals be noted.