Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bill Davidson.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bill Davidson.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on the 29 June 2017.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 29 June 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 29 June 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.

There was no other business.

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 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;

(4)       The Chairman advised that Members would be using hand held microphones and asked they wait until they had been handed a microphone before starting to speak;

(5)       The Chairman requested that all Members, officers and speakers announce their names before speaking;

(6)       The Chairman clarified that each group of speakers would have a maximum of 5 minutes. 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;

(7)       The Chairman announced that he had varied the order of business so that Item 10 (Land adjacent to A505 and Old North Road, Royston) would now be considered immediately before Item 9 (land north of Housman Avenue and Lindsay Close, Royston); and

(8)       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.

(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;

(4)       The Chairman advised that Members would be using hand held microphones and asked they wait until they had been handed a microphone before starting to speak;

(5)       The Chairman requested that all Members, officers and speakers announce their names before speaking;

(6)       The Chairman clarified that each group of speakers would have a maximum of 5 minutes. 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;

(7)       The Chairman announced that he had varied the order of business so that Item 10 (Land adjacent to A505 and Old North Road, Royston) would now be considered immediately before Item 9 (land north of Housman Avenue and Lindsay Close, Royston); and

(8)       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.

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 9 registered speakers and 2 Member Advocates were present.

The Chairman confirmed that the 9 registered speakers and 2 Member Advocates were present.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Change of use from A4 (Public house) to C3 (single dwelling).

RESOLVED:  That application 16/02113/1 be REFUSED planning permission for the following reason:

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the change of use of these premises to residential use would lead to the loss of a valuable community facility, the last public house in the village of Reed.  The change of use therefore conflicts with the requirements of Paragraphs 28 and 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy ETC7 of the North Hertfordshire Submission Local Plan (2011-2031).

Change of use from A4 (Public house) to C3 (single dwelling).

The Senior Planning Officer (AM) introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

The Senior Planning Officer (AM) advised that she had three updates to the report:

1.    An e-mail from Mr Edwin Kilby (Save the Cabinet Action Group) forward to Members on 17 July 2017 containing the following attachments:

- Briefing note from the Save the Cabinet Action Group;

- Further Representations prepared by Anthony Miller dated 26^th June 2017;

- Viability Report prepared by Anthony Miller; and

- a letter from Philip Goddard.

2.    An e-mail received on the 17 July 2017 from Dale Ingram threatening the Council with Judicial Review Action.  She claimed that if the application was determined, it was unreasonable on the basis that the decision taker had failed to take account of a material consideration.   Ms Ingram claimed that officers had not taken full account of all information submitted and also stated that the Trinity Solutions Assessment (which was the report prepared by the Council’s expert) needed to change its methodology to revise its recommendation from one of commercially unviable to one of commercially viable.

The Senior Planning Officer’s response was that officers had received, read, analysed and fully considered all information provided by all parties.  As set out in the committee report, the recommendation was fully considered and justified and the allegation that all material had not been considered was unsubstantiated and false.  Regarding the methodology used by the Council’s expert Mr Lawton at Trinity Solutions, as he was the expert in this field, it was his choice which methodology was acceptable to use.  The officers’ view was that there was no substance to this Judicial Review threat.

3.    An e-mail from local MP, Sir Oliver Heald, who objected to the application.   He stated that he had seen the papers provided by the Save the Cabinet Action Group and supported their points.

The Senior Planning Officer (AM) stated that this was a full planning application for the retention of the change of use of The Cabinet Public House to a single dwellinghouse.  The fact that this application was retrospective was irrelevant to the consideration of the case.  There were two associated listed building applications for the internal works which would be determined at a later date.  At present, Members were only being asked to consider the principle of the change of use.

The Senior Planning Officer (AM) explained that The Cabinet last traded as a public house in 2011.   It was offered for sale from July 2011 through 2012.   The public house was advertised for sale regionally and nationally, which resulted in 27 viewings.  Based on the location of the property, its Grade II listed status and the start up costs there was no interest.  The property was then sold at Auction in October 2015 and bought by the applicant.

The Senior Planning Officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Demolition of existing Cricket Pavilion in advanced state of disrepair to allow for a new two storey teaching and music block comprising of 10 general classrooms, 2 music classrooms and 6 practice rooms, and a multi-use auditorium with capacity for two hundred and twenty people. Provision of 18 additional car parking spaces in 3 differing locations. Reinstatement of bricked up windows in existing Music block.

RESOLVED:  That application 17/01038/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, and subject to the addition of the following informative:

The applicant is informed that should any trees that are subject if a Tree Preservation Order be required to be removed, in order to accommodated the realignment of the school sports pitches, this would require the submission of a separate application for ‘Application for tree works: works to trees subject to a tree preservation order (TPO) and/ or notification of proposed works to trees in a conservation area. Town an Country Planning Act 1990’.  Further information on the submission of such applications can be found at the planning pages of the council’s website, www.north-herts.gov.uk/home/planning.

Demolition of existing Cricket Pavilion in advanced state of disrepair to allow for a new two storey teaching and music block comprising of 10 general classrooms, 2 music classrooms and 6 practice rooms, and a multi-use auditorium with capacity for two hundred and twenty people. Provision of 18 additional car parking spaces in 3 differing locations. Reinstatement of bricked up windows in existing Music block.

The Senior Planning Officer (TA) introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

The Senior Planning Officer (TA) advised that, since completion of the report, one further response had been received in support of the application, making the final total 62 responses received in support and 70 objections, although it was noted that, of the objections, these included several petitions.

The Senior Planning Officer (TA) stated that the application was for several aspects, with the main aspect being the proposed teaching building to be located along the southern boundary of the sports fields, in the south-west corner of the site.  Also proposed were additional parking spaces at three locations along the eastern side of the site, amongst the school buildings and the reinstatement of four windows to the existing arts block.

The Senior Planning Officer (TA) commented that the south elevation of the proposed building would face towards Archers Court and Elmside.  He asked Members to take into account the rise in ground levels at the neighbouring properties and the fence and vegetation along the boundary.   Much of the first floor windows on the rear of the building were required to be obscured glazed.  In addition, two trees were proposed to be planted within a gap between buildings.

The Senior Planning Officer (TA) referred to two sectional drawings, which sought to demonstrate the relationship between the proposed building and the neighbouring buildings.  The top plan showed a section through the eastern end of the building and the relationship with Elmside and the lower plan showed a section through the middle of the proposed building and the eastern end of Archers Court.  A third sectional drawing, which was of the western end of the building, showed its setting in relation to Archers Court.  It could be seen that the first floor was set back at this end of the building, which was the closest point between the buildings.

The Senior Planning Officer (TA) advised that the key consideration was the impact the proposed building would have on the living conditions and amenity of the neighbouring residents.  The report had gone through each aspect in terms of the potential impacts and had concluded that, whilst no doubt there would be some impact and the building would certainly be visible, the impact would not be so significant so as to warrant a refusal of the application.  If Councillors considered that there would be a significantly harmful impact, in terms of being overbearing, causing loss of light, causing a loss of privacy or by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline application (including Access) for the erection of up to 25 dwellings.

RESOLVED:  That application 17/00700/1 be REFUSED planning permission, subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, inclusive of an amended reason for refusal 3 to state explicitly that the level of affordable housing to be covered by any Section 106 obligation should be 40%.

Outline application (including Access) for the erection of up to 25 dwellings.

The Senior Planning Officer (KP) introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

The Senior Planning Officer (KP) updated the Committee with a letter from the Campaign for Rural England (CPRE), objecting to the development for the following reasons:

·           It was contrary to the existing, emerging and national policies;

·           It would be unsustainable development, due to a reliance on private transport and apart from construction work, would not support  the economic role;

·           Its impact on the pattern of development of Barkway, as there was no development to most of its boundary;

·           Its impact on the landscape, due to its prominent location on the Chiltern Ridge, and would be detrimental even with landscape planting; and

·           objected to use of Grade 2 agricultural land.

The Senior Planning Officer (KP) advised that this was an application for outline planning permission for 25 houses.  The site was an agricultural field and measured 2.1 hectares. The development included a public open space and the retention of the agricultural use for part of the site.  It is intended that 40% of the housing would be affordable.

The Senior Planning Officer (KP) stated that the application site abutted Royston Road.  It was opposite the junction with The Joint and lay adjacent the telecommunications  mast.  The Barkway Village Boundary lay to the south of the site (the houses opposite the site also lay beyond the village boundary).  A drawing roughly indicated the zones for the housing, open space and agricultural land.  It also showed the access into the site.  A further drawing showed the applicant’s evaluation of the openness of the site and the projected fall zone for the mast.  However, she considered that this was not an accurate illustration of existing  plant screening of the site.

In respect of material planning considerations, the Senior Planning Officer (KP) explained that, as this was an outline planning application, the main consideration related to the principle of residential development on this location.  The site lay within the rural area beyond the Green Belt, and lay beyond the defined village boundary.  It did not relate to a site allocated for housing in the emerging Local Plan.  Officers had taken a precautionary approach, as the emerging Local Plan, whilst carrying some weight, was not yet adopted.

The Senior Planning Officer (KP) was of the view that the location of the site, beyond the built limits of Barkway, was considered to be harmful to the intrinsic beauty of the countryside and the wider landscape setting.  The harm was considered to outweigh the benefits of providing housing.  Consideration had also been given as to whether the development would be sustainable. It had been found to be unsustainable due to:

·           the likely dependence of future occupiers on private transport, as there were very limited services in the village; and

·           for economic reasons, due to the loss of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of 39 residential units comprising 1 x 5 bedroom dwelling; 14 x 4 bedroom dwellings; 16 x 3 bedroom dwellings; 2 x 2 bedroom dwellings; 4 x 2 bedroom flats  and 2 x 1 bedroom flats with associated internal access arrangements, car parking and landscaping. (Access to the site subject of a separate application ref no. 1201037/1).  (As amended by plans received 22/02/13; 24/04/13 and 13/06/13.).

RESOLVED:  That application 12/01903/1 be DEFERRED, to enable officers to go back to the applicant (Fairview Homes) in order to request a further viability assessment to be carried out in relation to affordable housing, and to have this independently assessed; a request that 40% affordable housing be incorporated in the development, as this is what is now required in light of the Emerging Plan, and especially in light of increases in land values and house prices since last viability report was carried out.

Erection of 39 residential units comprising 1 x 5 bedroom dwelling; 14 x 4 bedroom dwellings; 16 x 3 bedroom dwellings; 2 x 2 bedroom dwellings; 4 x 2 bedroom flats  and 2 x 1 bedroom flats with associated internal access arrangements, car parking and landscaping. (Access to the site subject of a separate application ref no. 12/01037/1).  (As amended by plans received 22/02/13; 24/04/13 and 13/06/13.).

The Senior Planning Officer (NR) introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site. 

The Senior Planning Officer (NR) advised that there was an error in the report.  Under Paragraph 2.1, Policy 8 – Development in Towns was listed as a relevant Policy.  However, this policy did not apply as the site was not currently within the settlement boundary of Royston, and so technically the relevant Policy was District Local Plan No 2 with Alterations Policy 6 – Rural Areas beyond the Green Belt.

The Senior Planning Officer (NR) stated that the appendix to go with this item had been circulated by e-mail and hard copies had been tabled.  The appendix was a copy of the report when this application was referred to Planning Committee in January 2014.

As discussed under the previous item, the Senior Planning Officer (NR) suggested the amended wording of Condition 4, with the addition of “or any alternative access that as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.”

The Senior Planning Officer (NR) commented that the applicant, Fairview Homes, had planning permission on Sites B and C further to the east and these were near completion.  Site A was under construction.  The central area was owned by Hertfordshire County Council and there was not currently a planning application for this site.  Site D occupied a triangular section of land adjacent to the roundabout of the A505 with the Old North Road and to the north of Housman Ave and Lindsay Avenue.

The Senior Planning Officer (NR) advised that this application had already been considered by Planning Committee in January 2014.  There was a resolution that planning permission be granted, subject to the agreement of the Heads of Terms of a Section 106 Agreement.  There had been lengthy delays in the negotiation and agreement of a Section 106 Agreement, for reasons which had been outside the control of the Local Planning Authority.  However, the Section 106 Agreement had now been agreed by all parties.  This application was being referred back to the Planning Control Committee because, due to the passage of time, some of the Planning Obligations were no longer required or justified. 

The Senior Planning Officer (NR) stated that there had been a few other changes since the application was last considered by the Committee, which were discussed in the report and, as such, there had been some minor changes to the recommended conditions and informatives.  She recommended that planning permission be granted.

Members expressed concern that the application and associated Section 106  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Formation of an access road from Old North Road to serve proposed residential development of 39 units at Site D, Land to north of Housman Avenue and Lindsay Close, Royston.

RESOLVED:  That application 17/00666/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, and that should there be a resolution to grant planning permission to application 12/01903/1 (see Minute 36 below), the following sentence should be added to proposed Grampian condition 4 relating to that application: “or any alternative access as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority”.

Formation of an access road from Old North Road to serve proposed residential development of 39 units at Site D, Land to north of Housman Avenue and Lindsay Close, Royston.

[Prior to the consideration of this item, Councillor Fiona Hill made a Declarable Interest in this and the next Item (Minute 36 below), as she lived in a property in Lindsay Avenue, Royston.  She stated that she would listen to the Planning Officer’s presentation, speak to the item, and then withdraw for the meeting for the debate and vote upon this item, and would remain outside of the meeting for the whole of the Committee’s consideration of the following item – Minute 36 below.]

The Senior Planning Officer (NR) introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site. 

The Senior Planning Officer (NR) advised that she had no updates to the report.  Unfortunately, the appendices for this item and the next were not included in the agenda.  Members should have received these by e-mail and hard copies were tabled.  The appendix was a copy of the report on the previously approved application for the formation of an access road form the Old North Road to serve proposed residential development of 124 units at Site A.

The Senior Planning Officer (NR) stated that she had received a letter from Vincent and Gorbing on behalf of their client, Hertfordshire County Council (HCC), as landowner, which she summarised as follows:

·           In general terms, they were wholly supportive of an access from Old North Road, as required by the emerging site allocation, Policy RY4.  However, the details submitted at present did not demonstrate that the proposed access could meet the aims of that emerging Policy, as the proposed access would only be suitable for up to 50 dwellings; 

·           A different road geometry was likely to be required to support the greater number of traffic movements associated with the potential dwellings on the undeveloped area and Site A.  This more extensive assessment of traffic movements was undertaken in association with the earlier planning application for an access and spine road through the Masterplan area, ref. 12/01037/1; 

·           Concerned about the conditions recommended by the Highways Authority.  In particular, a condition which required the applicant to submit details demonstrating the refuse vehicle used by NHDC could be accommodated.  This should be resolved prior to the grant of planning permission.  The vehicle size used for tracking in the submitted application was smaller than the standard sized vehicle usually required for tracking in association with development in Hertfordshire; 

·           Raised concerns about another condition, as the ability to deliver an access that connected to the east and Burns Road was likely to require a different access geometry/arrangement; and 

·           Had concerns regarding the proposed access arrangement – suggest the layout would lend itself to a right hand turn out of the site across the road.

The Senior Planning Officer (NR) had a received a response to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Residential development comprising of 3no.detached 4 bed dwellings, 4no. semi-detached 3 bed dwellings, 2no. terraced 2 bed dwellings and widening of existing vehicular access off of Heath Road.

RESOLVED:  That application 17/01207/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, and subject to a revised Condition 13 and additional Condition 16 as follows:

13.  Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans full details of the hard and soft landscaping of the site including hardsurfaced materials and species of plants and / or trees to be planted shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include substantial planting along the southern boundary of the site with St. Mary's Rise.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.  

16.  Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a drainage strategy for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To control surface water run-off and to avoid the risk of flooding. 

Residential development comprising of 3no.detached 4 bed dwellings, 4no. semi-detached 3 bed dwellings, 2no. terraced 2 bed dwellings and widening of existing vehicular access off of Heath Road.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

The Area Planning Officer advised that, since writing the report, he had received  a representation from the Breachwood Green Society, which he summarised as follows:

·           Concerned that scheme would not provide social housing;

·           Lack of facilities meant that residents would need to make car journeys through narrow rural lanes;

·           School had no room for expansion;

·           Concern for highway safety;

·           Concern at height of development relative to adjacent housing;

·           Comment that old brick pits on the site had recently been infilled and, with loss of trees, there was concern at the stability of the land; and

·           Comment that Breachwood Green cannot sustain further residential development.

Notwithstanding the above comments, the Area Planning Officer recommended that planning permission be granted. 

Mr Don Heath (local resident) addressed the Committee in objection to application 17/00348/1.

Mr Heath advised that he lived at 8 St. Mary’s Rise, which was opposite one of the proposed two storey houses.  He considered that, if the development was built, his privacy would be lost as he lived in a bungalow.

Mr Heath stated that there had been 20 response in favour of the application from local residents, and only 6 against.  He was one of those against, all of whom lived in St. Mary’s Rise.  He felt that the 20 responses in favour may have been of the view that if this development was carried out, then other proposals for development elsewhere in the village would not take place.

Mr Heath advised that there was once an orchard on the edge of the application site, but that this had long gone.  The land was now flat, well fenced and well maintained, but was still very open compared to how it once looked.

Mr Heath understood that none of the eight units proposed were to be offered for affordable housing.  He was further concerned that the building construction works would have an adverse effect on the health of some of the residents of St. Mary’s Rise.

Mr Heath was concerned that the site was higher than St. Mary’s Rise, and with the fact that the Claypits which use to occupy the site had all been filled in, that potential flooding could be a problem.

Mr Heath had noticed that the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) had stated that, in their opinion, the site was not environmentally suitable and was in an unsustainable location.

The Chairman thanked Mr Heath for his presentation.

In responding to an issue raised during Mr Heath’s presentation, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that the application was for 8 dwellings, and was therefore below the threshold of 10 dwellings which required the provision of a percentage of affordable housing.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Addition of two storeys to existing building to provide 7 x 2-bed flats (floors 3 and 4); change of use of ground floor of No. 80 to A1 shop unit and entrance hallway, change of use of first floor of No. 80 Hermitage Road from A3 to C3 to provide 1 x studio flat; existing second floor flat of No. 74 Hermitage Road converted to 1 x studio flat and 1 x 1-bed flat; re-clad external elevations of existing building; provision of new stair and lift tower and associated refuse and recycling store. (As amended by plan nos. 3183 01B, 10H, 12D, 15 F, 22).

RESOLVED:  That application 17/00348/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, and subject to a revised Condition 9 as follows:

9.    Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of cycle storage facilities to serve the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of promoting sustainable transport choices for the occupiers of the flats.

Addition of two storeys to existing building to provide 7 x 2-bed flats (floors 3 and 4); change of use of ground floor of No. 80 to A1 shop unit and entrance hallway, change of use of first floor of No. 80 Hermitage Road from A3 to C3 to provide 1 x studio flat; existing second floor flat of No. 74 Hermitage Road converted to 1 x studio flat and 1 x 1-bed flat; re-clad external elevations of existing building; provision of new stair and lift tower and associated refuse and recycling store. (As amended by plan nos. 3183 01B, 10H, 12D, 15 F, 22).

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site. 

The Area Planning Officer updated the Committee with an e-mail received from a Mr Stroud, who understood that the Sukawatee restaurant had secured alternative premises. If this was the case, then Mr Stroud withdrew his objection and supported the scheme, as he saw it as a positive reinvigoration of the Hitchin Town Centre.

The Area Planning Officer recommended that planning permission be granted. 

Mr Jonathan Read (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of application 17/00348/1.

Mr Read advised that, five years ago, there had been a public exhibition in respect of the Hermitage Road former Post Office site.  A frequent comment made at this exhibition was question asking when was the adjoining site (ie. the site of this application) going to be redeveloped.

Mr Read stated that, due to the mix of ownerships of the existing occupiers of the building (many of them on long leases) limiting the scheme, a demolition and re-build option would not be realistic.

Mr Read considered that the proposed scheme transformed and reinvigorated the building, which was one of the least attractive in Hitchin Town Centre.  The proposals included residential units, together with the recladding and refenestration of the building to create a unified design to work with the existing geometry of the building, and designed to be sympathetic with other buildings in the street scene.

Mr Read explained that, in addition, the proposals completed the pedestrian riverside link between Hermitage Road and Portmill Lane, improving pedestrian connectivity to the Market, St. Mary’s Church, Churchyard and major car parks.  The proposals contributed to what had been a substantial reinvigoration of Hermitage Road over recent years.

Mr Read commented that two additional storeys had been proposed, making it a five storey building.  The scale of the building was mitigated by the setting back of the top floor from the roadside.  The two storeys of residential apartments contributed to the overall viability of the scheme.

The Chairman thanked Mr Read for his presentation.

The Committee was supportive of this application, but concern was expressed over the lack of cycle storage facilities.  In agreeing that permission be granted, the Committee agreed that this would be subject to an additional condition requiring details of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Variation to condition 2 (development in accordance with approved plans) of planning permission ref 11/00772/1 granted 23/05/2011 including increase in height of main roof and reduction in depth of side extension and alterations to fenestration (as amended by plan nos. CRI/09/03G, 05G & 07G).

RESOLVED:  That application 17/00536/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, subject to the revised Condition 3, new Conditions 14 and 15, and additional informative as follows:

3.    Prior to the development being first brought into use a 1.0 metre x 1.0 metre visibility splay shall be provided and permanently maintained on either side of the access. It shall be measured from the edge of the accessway to the edge of the carriageway/back of footpath, within which there shall be not obstruction to visibility between 600mm and 2.0 metres above the carriageway/footpath level.

Reason: To provide adequate visibility for drivers entering or leaving the site.

14.  A phasing plan indicating the timeframe for the completion of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the general amenity of the area.

15.  Prior to the completion of the development hereby permitted refuse storage details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.

Informative:

The applicant is advised that the Local Planning Authority will carry out regular monitoring of the works to ensure that they are completed in accordance with the approved plans and planning conditions.

Variation to condition 2 (development in accordance with approved plans) of planning permission ref 11/00772/1 granted 23/05/2011 including increase in height of main roof and reduction in depth of side extension and alterations to fenestration (as amended by plan nos. CRI/09/03G, 05G & 07G).

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

The Area Planning Officer updated the Committee as follows:

1.    The Council had received seven additional e-mails expressing support for the proposals, with the main reason for support being that the development would secure the future of the pub as an important asset to the community.

2.    An amended site plan had been received and this showed a 1 metre x 1 metre visibility splay taken from the corner of the proposed side extension.

3.    Formal comments had been received from the Highway Authority and they raised no objection to the development based on the sightlines proposed. They had suggested an alteration to condition 3 to reflect the reduced sightlines of 1.0m x 1.0m.

The Area Planning Officer confirmed that the revised layout for the extension was slightly smaller than the original footprint, but that the roof line was some 450mm higher than that previously approved.

The Area Planning Officer recommended that planning permission be granted for this alteration to the original permission.

Parish Councillor Colin Thurstance (Ickleford Parish Council) addressed the Committee in objection to application 17/00536/1.

Parish Councillor Thurstance advised that Ickleford Parish Council, as elected custodians of the village, was acutely aware of the need for balanced development.  The Parish Council believed it to be important to encourage local business, such as pubs, to evolve and thrive to maintain a vibrant local environment.  The Parish Council, therefore, acknowledged the applicant’s attempts to develop The Cricketers.

Parish Councillor Thurstance stated, however, that the Parish Council was opposed to the size and scale of the applicant’s plans, due to the impact on his neighbours and the general impact on the street scene.  It was on this basis that the Parish Council objected to the planning application.

Parish Councillor Thurstance commented that, in the Planning Officer’s summary for the Committee, he stated that the overall height of the proposed building was “comparable to many other properties along Arlesey Road.”  The Parish Council believed that the Planning Officer had unintentionally misled the Committee.  Arlesey Road was a long thoroughfare with a range of housing styles and sizes, some of which were indeed comparable with what was being proposed for The Cricketers.  However, a more appropriate comparison would be with those houses closest to the development.  The new height of the Cricketers was greater than all the properties on Arlesey Road immediately to the south of the site, and higher than most of those to the north.  Moreover, the increased height of The Cricketers was exacerbated by the fact that the frontage of the building was sited directly onto the pavement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.