Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors John Bishop, Paul Clark and Ian Mantle.

Councillor Sarah Dingley was substituting for Councillor Bishop.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors John Bishop, Paul Clark and Ian Mantle.

Councillor Sarah Dingley was substituting for Councillor Bishop.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on the 17 August 2017.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 17 August 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 17 August 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 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; and

(7)       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; and

(7)       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 and presentations from members of the public.

The Chairman confirmed that the 6 registered speakers were present.

The Chairman confirmed that the 6 registered speakers were present.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 99 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and vehicular access point from Holwell Road. All matters reserved except for means of access.

RESOLVED: That application 17/01543/1 be REFUSED outline planning permission, for the reasons as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 99 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and vehicular access point from Holwell Road. All matters reserved except for means of access.

The Area Planning Officer presented 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 14 additional letters from members of the public, and the points raised in this correspondence had already been covered in the summary of the objections to the development and covered in the key issues as set out in his report.  All of these letters had been placed on the Council’s public access website.

In addition, the Area Planning Officer had received the following:

(1)     Pirton Parish Council had submitted a supplementary letter to their formal comments which were attached at Appendix 1 to his report.  This additional letter repeated many of the points covered in Appendix 1, however, he summarised them as follows:

·      The proposals were premature in advance of the local and neighbourhood plan preparation;

·      There would be an adverse impact on the landscape and setting of the village;

·      There would be a negative cumulative impact;

·      Adverse impact from traffic and poor connectivity;

·      Loss of agricultural land;

·      Negative impact on the environment and biodiversity;

·      Potential impact on archaeology and heritage assets;

·      Would lead to an urbanising impact on the Hambridge Way and Icknield Way contrary to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan;

·      The development was unsustainable.

(2)     Comments from Holwell Parish Council which had also appeared on the web site under a neighbour representation.  However, they had been submitted now as a consultee representation.  He summarised them as follows:

·      The Holwell Parish Council objected in the strongest possible terms;

·      Concern of the impact of construction traffic on the rural villages of Holwell and Pirton;

·      Concern of the impact on pedestrians and other users of local roads and footpaths;

·      Query whether the homes would be affordable;

·      Lack of local infrastructure to support the additional dwellings;

·      The development would detract from the Chilterns Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

·      Increase in traffic and congestion detrimental to highway safety;

·      In summary, the Parish Council considered the proposals an overdevelopment at the highest level.   

The Area Planning Officer had received formal comments from the Council’s Waste and Recycling Manager, who recommended conditions relating to refuse collection routes and full details of on-site storage facilities for waste and recycling.  The comments also included technical advice with regard to matters of waste storage and separation.

In summarising, the Area Planning Officer drew the Committee’s attention to the Government’s high priority, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, to deliver new housing.  Clearly this proposal would provide a significant number of dwellings, including affordable dwellings and there would also be economic benefits to the local economy.  On the other hand, the proposal would, by reason of its  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of single storey retail foodstore (Use Class A1), a three storey hotel (use Class C1), a single storey restaurant/drive-thru (Use Class A3/A5),  a single storey coffee shop/drive-thru (Use Class A1/A3), new access arrangements, car parking, service areas, landscaping and other associated works following demolition of existing building (as amended by drawings received 02/06/2017).

RESOLVED: That, subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Obligation, application 17/00477/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, and with the following amended Condition 4 and additional Conditions 20 and 21:

4.       Prior to the commencement of groundworks, full details of landscaping phasing will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details will identify at which stages the different aspects of landscaping, as shown on drawing numbers NCSP 508/1-002E and NCSP 508/1-003E, will be carried out and competed as part of the development site. The approved phasing of landscaping will be provided in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the completed development and visual amenity of the locality.

20.     Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted full details of external litter bin installations associated with the proposed restaurant and cafe shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such works shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details or particulars prior to the first use of the restaurant and cafe and thereafter retained and maintained for that purpose.

Reason: To ensure suitable litter bin facilities are available in the interests of public amenity.

21.     Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted full details of the location and distribution of electric vehicle charging installations shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such installations shall be provided in accordance with the approved details or particulars prior to the first use of each relevant part of the development and thereafter retained and maintained for that purpose.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, public convenience and environmental gain.

Erection of single storey retail foodstore (Use Class A1), a three storey hotel (use Class C1), a single storey restaurant/drive-thru (Use Class A3/A5),  a single storey coffee shop/drive-thru (Use Class A1/A3), new access arrangements, car parking, service areas, landscaping and other associated works following demolition of existing building (as amended by drawings received 02/06/2017).

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

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that negotiations regarding the proposed Section 106 Agreement had not been completed, and therefore that any grant of permission should be subject to the completion of such an Agreement.  He further advised of the recommended amended wording to proposed Condition 4, as follows:

          “Prior to the commencement of groundworks, full details of landscaping phasing will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details will identify at which stages the different aspects of landscaping, as shown on drawing numbers NCSP 508/1-002E and NCSP 508/1-003E, will be carried out and competed as part of the development site. The approved phasing of landscaping will be provided in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the completed development and visual amenity of the locality.”

The Committee was addressed by Mr Julian Sutton (Applicant’s Agent) in support of application 17/00477/1.

Mr Sutton advised that the Committee’s consideration of this application was the culmination of year’s work with the Planning Officers in bringing forward the development of the site for much needed regeneration.  He and the applicant were grateful for the proactive and pragmatic way in which those officers had worked with them in order that they application could be presented at the meeting.

Mr Sutton considered that the redevelopment proposals were of significant benefit to Letchworth and its residents.  They represented a £16Million investment in the town, and the proposed regeneration scheme would:

·                Provide a widened food shopping choice in Letchworth in a highly accessible location;

·                Provide high quality new visitor and business accommodation in the local area in an accessible location;

·                Provide additional food and drink choice to local residents and surrounding businesses in the industrial area;

·                Create approximately 150 full time equivalent jobs, plus spinoff jobs through the construction process;

·                Create other economic spinoffs from the proposed Travelodge Hotel, as guests would visit shop and facilities within the town.  Travelodge’s own statistics suggested that this could be up to £1.25Million per annum; and

·                It would redevelop a long term, vacant site which currently detracted from the local environment of Letchworth Garden City and offered the opportunity for environmental enhancement by bringing a derelict site back into beneficial use and, in particular, provided for enhanced landscaping to the benefit of the local environment.

Mr Sutton stated that the submission of the application had followed a public consultation event held on 8 February 2017 and, hence, the application was supported by a Statement of Community Involvement which confirmed that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Change of use from Public House (Class A4) to use as a single dwelling house (Class C3); Single storey rear extension following part demolition of existing rear extension; Insertion of dormer window to rear roof slope; Single storey rear extension following demolition of existing single storey lean-to extension. Front canopy following demolition of existing front porch.

RESOLVED: That application 17/00442/1 be REFUSED planning permission, for the following reason:

1.       The proposed change of use of the public house to residential use would not promote the retention of this important local facility. Moreover, the applicant's evidence on sustaining a viable business has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The proposal therefore conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Proactive Statement

Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council has not acted proactively through positive engagement with the applicant as in the Council's view the proposal is unacceptable in principle and the fundamental objections cannot be overcome through dialogue. Since no solutions can be found the Council has complied with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

Change of use from Public House (Class A4) to use as a single dwelling house (Class C3); Single storey rear extension following part demolition of existing rear extension; Insertion of dormer window to rear roof slope; Single storey rear extension following demolition of existing single storey lean-to extension. Front canopy following demolition of existing front porch.

The Area Planning Officer presented 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 Members of the Committee had been copied in on a message by Councillor John Bishop, who considered that the Maiden Head Public House would under progressive management still be viable as a public house.  Councillor Bishop was concerned that no viability figures were available to support the officer recommendation.  Councillor Bishop requested that the Committee refuse planning permission on the same grounds as the refusal of planning permission for a change of use of the White Horse at Kimpton to a dwelling.  The application was refused by the Planning Committee in August 2015, and Councillor Bishop had attached the Decision Notice regarding that decision to his e-mail for the Committee’s reference.

The Area Planning Officer reported the formal comments of St. Pauls Walden Parish Council.  The Parish Council referred to the listing of the Maidens Head as an Asset of Community Value and the significant level of financial support that may be available within the local community that could be invested.  The Parish Council considered that the retention of the property as a public house would help maintain the strong community values within the Parish and they pointed to the Red Lion at Preston as an example of a successful community pub.  The Parish Council considered that the retention of the No. 67 High Street, Whitwell as a public house was of considerably more community value to the village than a private residence.

The Area Planning Officer reported a letter received from Mr Widdowson on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Pubs in Whitwell representations not being on the Council’s website and the inability of the Society to see the viability reports.

The Committee was addressed by Mr David Widdowson (Society for the Protection of Pubs in Whitwell), supported by Mr Kai Allen (local resident), in objection to application 17/00442/1.

Mr Widdowson began by referring to the key point of viability.  He understood that the applicant had submitted a report and the Planning Officer commissioned an independent review of that.  He had seen neither of those so he could not possibly challenge some of the assumptions that they may contain.  However, the question of viability depended on a number of factors including personal perception:

·                this was clear from the fact that the independent report apparently rejected a number of the conclusions drawn by the applicant’s report; and

·                Also, as to the CAMRA Public House Viability Test referred to in the Planning Officer’s report at Paragraph 4.3.5.  He was of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Single storey rear extension following demolition of existing rear extension, shed and front porch. Consequential internal and external alterations to facilitate change of use from Class A4 (Drinking Establishment) to use as a single dwelling house Class C3 (Dwelling House).

RESOLVED: That application 17/00443/1LB be DEFERRED until the outcome is known of any appeal against the Committee’s decision to refuse permission for the change of use application for 67 High Street, Whitwell (ref: 17/00442/1) set out in Minute 55 above.

Single storey rear extension following demolition of existing rear extension, shed and front porch. Consequential internal and external alterations to facilitate change of use from Class A4 (Drinking Establishment) to use as a single dwelling house Class C3 (Dwelling House).

The Committee considered the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of application 17/00443/1LB, seeking Listed Building Consent for works to 67 High Street, Whitwell.

          In the light of the previous decision (see Minute 55 above), the Committee debated the merits of refusing or deferring this application.  Members concluded that the application should be deferred until the outcome was known of any appeal against the Committee’s decision to refuse permission for the change of use application for 67 High Street, Whitwell (ref: 17/00442/1).

RESOLVED: That application 17/00443/1LB be DEFERRED until the outcome is known of any appeal against the Committee’s decision to refuse permission for the change of use application for 67 High Street, Whitwell (ref: 17/00442/1) set out in Minute 55 above.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Timber clad barn.

RESOLVED: That application 17/01214/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Timber clad barn.

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

          The Development and Conservation Manager commented that the applicant had set out in his letter appended to the report as to why the proposed building was required, namely due to the fact that he had been the victim of crime and hence needed to store vehicles and equipment in a secure manner.  Whilst the site was in the Green Belt, the Development and Conservation Manager did not consider that it would be inappropriate development as it would be associated with the normal rural use of the land and was important for security purposes.

The Committee was addressed by Mr Richard Langeveld (Applicant) in support of application 17/01214/1.

Mr Langeveld advised that he had bought Calders Cottage in 1999, and what had attracted him was its semi-isolated rural location.  When he and his family were at home it was a lovely, but when they were at work or on holiday then anyone else who should not be there was also on their own to do whatever they wanted without being disturbed.

Mr Langeveld stated that he had been the victim of criminal activity over the past 7 years on 10 separate occasions, all reported to the Police.  These included a stolen trailer; stolen motorbike; garage broken into and £10,000 worth of equipment stolen; stolen car trailer; house broken into and arson attack on house whilst it was being extended; copper theft whilst house was being extended; attempted theft of trailer; copper theft from garden; vandalism; and trespassing.  In addition, he had lost count of numerous fly tipping incidents, sometimes of hazardous materials, on the lane blocking the track for both he and his family and emergency vehicles.

Mr Langeveld commented that he had assisted the Police wherever possible, and they actually installed CCTV at his property a few years ago.  Hertfordshire County Council had recently installed a number of gates on the Putteridgebury Estate in an attempt to reduce crime levels and fly tipping, and to make criminal “get-aways” harder.

Mr Langeveld explained that the purpose of the proposed barn was for safe secure storage of belongings and equipment.  Necessary security demanded that it was positioned as per his application and he wanted it in the proposed location for the following reasons:

·                It was relatively close to his house;

·                He could keep an eye on it because of its close proximity;

·                If it was a distance away he would not keep a regular/daily check on it;

·                If it was a distance away he would not hear anything untoward;

·                It was easily accessed from his track and drive; and

·                The existing security alarm could be easily extended to cover the proposed barn.

Mr Langeveld took the opportunity to reassure members that he had absolutely no intention to convert the barn into a residential dwelling either now or in the future.  It was to be a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

RESOLVED: That the report entitled 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, two planning appeals had been lodged and one planning appeal decision had been received, all as detailed in the report.

RESOLVED: That the report entitled Planning Appeals be noted.