Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Cathryn Henry and Adrian Smith.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Cathryn Henry and Adrian Smith.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on the 9 November 2017.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Control Committee held on 9 November 2017 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Control Committee held on 9 November 2017 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and 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 and 1 Member Advocate (Councillor Strong) were present.

The Chairman confirmed that the 6 registered speakers and 1 Member Advocate (Councillor Strong) were present.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Construction Management Plan & Traffic Management Plan - Condition 6 - Holwell route by CALA dated 2/11/17 Road Safety Appraisal by Mayer Brown dated 27th October 2017 (as Discharge of Condition of planning permission 15/01618/1 granted 25/05/2016)

RESOLVED: That, in respect of application 17/02807/1DOC, subject to the amendment below, the details submitted pursuant to condition no. 6 of planning permission 15/01618/1 be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, and that the requirements of condition 6 are not discharged.

The final Paragraph of the reason to read:

“Not withstanding these inadequacies, the Local Planning Authority does not consider that there could be a satisfactory or safe construction route through Holwell. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy T1 of the North Hertfordshire Submission Local Plan (2011-2031).”

Construction Management Plan & Traffic Management Plan - Condition 6 - Holwell route by CALA dated 2/11/17 Road Safety Appraisal by Mayer Brown dated 27th October 2017 (as Discharge of Condition of planning permission 15/01618/1 granted 25/05/2016).

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 there were a number of updates to the report as follows:

Holwell Parish Council

Members had been sent an email to all Members containing the letter of objection to this application from Holwell Parish Council.

This stated that Holwell Parish Council continued to object to the proposed construction traffic route through Holwell as they considered the route to be unsafe for large HGVs and in particular not wide enough to accommodate HGVs operating on a two-way carriageway.

Environmental Health – Noise

The Council’s Environmental Health officer had confirmed that they raised no objection to the application on noise grounds.

Legal Advice - Receipt

The Development and Conservation Manager had circulated to all Members a copy of a letter sent to David Scholes (Chief Executive) together with an opinion from the applicant’s legal adviser, Peter Vaughan QC.

The Council had received these documents on the evening of Monday 11 December 2017 and, following a meeting with CALA Homes on Tuesday 12 December 2017, sought clarification from them as to the status of these documents.

The Applicant’s confirmed at lunchtime today, 14 December 2017, that the documents were additional supporting documents for this application as well as application 17/02778/1DOC, which was not being presented at this meeting, but was referred to in Paragraph 1.29 of the report.

Both documents had been placed on the Council’s website on the afternoon of 14 December 2017 as further supporting documents relating to both applications.

Paragraph 1.29 of the report stated that the statutory determining period for application 17/02778/1DOC had been extended to 31 January 2018, with a report for the Planning Committee meeting due to be held on 18 January 2017.

Following the meeting with CALA Homes, a further extension had been agreed to the statutory expiry date to 28 February 2018. This extension would enable time to consult on any revised proposals which may come forward as a result of the on-going negotiations taking place between the applicant, officers and Hertfordshire County Council Highways Authority. On this basis he advised that he did not anticipate this application to be reported to the January meeting of this Committee.

Content of Legal Advice and Context for Decision Making

The Development and Conservation Manager highlighted the key points from the legal advice and the context for decision making.

He clarified that this summary was not his opinion and the advice was being reviewed and what that meant for enforcement and any future decisions by the Committee. The review of this advice was ongoing, however there was no reason to change the recommendation of refusal as set out in the report.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 85 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, subject to the amended reason for refusal 3 below, application 17/02563/1 be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Reason for refusal 3 to read:

The proposed development lies within an Area of Archaeological Significance.  Records in close proximity to the site suggest it lies within an area of significant archaeological potential. Given this and the large scale nature of the proposal, this development should be regarded as likely to have an impact on significant heritage assets with archaeological interest, some of which may be of sufficient importance to meet NPPF para 139. This could represent a significant constraint on development. In the absence of a suitable archaeological field evaluation, there is insufficient information to determine the importance of any archaeological remains on the site. The proposal will be contrary to Section 12 of the NPPF.

The Chairman announced that there would be a brief recess

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 85 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 advised that there were a number of updates to the report as follows:

Pirton Parish Council

Pirton Parish Council had advised that the report did not provide an update on the progress of the Pirton Neighbourhood Plan.

They advised that the Plan was now being examined, with the Inspectors report due before Christmas.

The Parish Council asked that this be acknowledged in the weight given to the Neighbourhood Plan in the decision on this application.

The Area Planning Officer had checked with the Council’s Neighbourhood Plan Officer who had confirmed that the examination was nearing completion and that the examiner’s report was imminent.

As stated in the officer’s report, the weight that could be attributed to the Neighbourhood Plan as it stood, remained limited in terms of planning decisions.

Formal comments had been received from Hertfordshire County Council as the Highway Authority.

The Highway Authority advised that it did not wish to raise an objection to the development, subject to 8 planning conditions and highway informatives.

In addition, the Authority would require Section 106 to secure a Construction and Logistics Plan and support for a travel plan.

The County Council Archaeologist advised that a Written Scheme of Investigation for the site had been agreed with the applicant’s archaeological consultants.

Work to commence archaeological trial trenching on the site had not yet commenced, that applicant advised that this would now take place in January.

The Historic Environment Advisor at the County Council had advised that the recommendation for refusal on archaeological grounds until such time as the WSI and field work had been carried out, a satisfactory report received and that it was sufficiently certain that no further archaeological investigations were required prior to determination of this application. However, if the officer was satisfied with the data relating to the geophysical survey and therefore recommended that the reason for refusal 3 be amended to delete the words “geophysical survey or” from the penultimate sentence.

A consultation response had been received from Historic England who advised that they did not wish to offer any comments. They recommended that views be sought from the Council’s specialist conservation and archaeological advisors as relevant.

Progress on Section 106 matters had been made as mentioned in Paragraph 4.3.41 of the report, however, at this stage, matters had not progressed sufficiently to the satisfaction of the Council and therefore reason for refusal 4 remained as set out in the report.

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.

Parish Councillor Diane Burleigh, Pirton Parish Council, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02563/1.

Parish Councillor Burleigh informed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Part single and part two storey rear extension.

RESOLVED: That application 17/02500/1HH be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Part single and part two storey rear extension.

Councillor John Bishop advised that he had supported the request of the Parish Council that this application be called in as he felt there was enough merit to require examination by the Committee. He had not however yet formed an opinion regarding this application.

The Area Planning Officer advised that amended plans had been submitted to show a refuse bin storage area and arrangement for surface water drainage.

These details covered two areas of concern raised by Kimpton Parish Council in their formal comments.

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.

Mrs Sally Clark thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02500/1HH.

Mrs Clark informed Members that she was speaking on behalf of the Kimpton residents, who strongly objected to the plans.

The Heritage Statement and application stated that the 19th Century buildings were being removed, yet omitted to state that a large proportion of the 17^th Century pitched roof would be removed to accommodate the 2 storey extension.

This rear roof was typical of a cottage of this era and provided a historic and picturesque view from the church, the road and the neighbouring gardens. To change this so dramatically would ruin the character of the row of cottages and lose a piece of history for ever.

The proposed extension would be built along the length of, and directly on top of the shared drainage that runs along the rear of all 3 cottages. There was no plan to re-route drainage piped and this was unacceptable.

The design was aimed at a family with potentially 3 or 4 cars. There was no room in Church Lane for more cars and parking for residents was already a problem. More cars would probably prevent emergency vehicles from accessing the top of the road. Cars were already parking on the grass in the churchyard.

The application stated that the plans did not include storage areas for waste and recyclables, this would need addressing to prevent bins being left on the road.

The sole purpose of this development was to increase the value of the property for the owner, who did not live in it, or even live in the village, to the detriment of losing a little piece of local history for ever and that is apart from the parking problems.

Mrs Clark advised that, from her point of view, daylight into her kitchen would be reduced, her view would change from looking at trees and the churchyard to looking at a brick wall a few yards from her window, her garden would also suffer from reduced daylight.

This development would reduce light into Church Lane and block views from the church to the green opposite.

The bulk of the extension was totally out of place and inappropriate for such an historic, picturesque row of listed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Demolition of rear single-storey lean-to and detached external WC building. Part single and part two storey rear extension. Install roof light to north elevation, replace windows in east elevation and internal alterations.

RESOLVED: That application 17/02501/1LB be GRANTED Listed Building Consent, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Demolition of rear single-storey lean-to and detached external WC building. Part single and part two storey rear extension. Install roof light to north elevation, replace windows in east elevation and internal alterations.

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.

RESOLVED: That application 17/02501/1LB be GRANTED Listed Building Consent, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Two storey side extension including five dormer windows to west elevation and three dormer windows to east elevation to provide 15 no. additional bedrooms and en-suite bathrooms with associated residents & staff facilities. Alterations and extension of existing car park so as to provide parking for 31 cars and ancillary works.

RESOLVED: That application 17/02602/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Two storey side extension including five dormer windows to west elevation and three dormer windows to east elevation to provide 15 no. additional bedrooms and en-suite bathrooms with associated residents & staff facilities. Alterations and extension of existing car park so as to provide parking for 31 cars and ancillary works.

          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.

Members noted that this was an amendment to a previous approved application and agreed that the amendments were relatively minor.

RESOLVED: That application 17/02602/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Installation of 3 wall mounted air conditioning units on north (car park) elevation (as amended by plan nos. 010 Rev F and 011 Rev D received 02/11/17 and 14/11/17).

RESOLVED: That application 17/01858/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Installation of 3 wall mounted air conditioning units on north (car park) elevation (as amended by plan nos. 010 Rev F and 011 Rev D received 02/11/17 and 14/11/17).

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 the placement of the air conditioning units had been changed at his suggestion and would now be placed inside the car park.

One of the issues raised had been the proposed installation of an extraction fan on the side elevation.

Ms Tracey Grainger thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/01858/1.

Ms Grainger informed Members that when the residents bought their apartments at Church View, it was made clear by the joint estate agents, Country Properties and Putterills, the developer Whitebarn and solicitors acting for Whitebarn, that the planning consent for the retail unit, 1 Church View, whilst A3, was specified as ‘cafe use only', with such restriction specifically put in the lease by the developer to protect purchasers of the apartments.

Residents were advised in writing that it would most likely be a family coffee shop/deli with facilities for minor food preparation only. The lack of ventilation was emphasised to us as an important reason why it would never be viable as a hot food outlet. Opening hours were restricted from 8 am to 8 pm and we were advised there was no prospect of a license to sell alcohol ever being granted.

Mr Tom Rea, NHDC planning officer, confirmed that when the planning conditions for the old Post Office site were agreed, it was anticipated the retail unit would be a low key, discreet cafe in tune with this, up market, development and surrounding Conservation Area.

As new landlords, having recently purchased the freehold via Church View Hitchin Ltd, we have already advised the applicants through our solicitors, that what they proposed was outside the terms of their lease.

The original application was for 3 air con units on the outside, east elevation wall. Mr Rea was evidently not keen on this location, from both an aesthetic and security point of view and suggested an alternative site in our garage/car park, as per the amended application.

Either location, however, was very close to apartment balconies and windows and would have attendant noise pollution, smells and fumes which would negatively impact on our amenity and right of enjoyment of our homes, and we do agree with Mr Rea that the initial proposal was visually unsightly, not secure and prone to vandalism.

The second proposal in the undercover garage area would, in addition to reducing the space of our bike store amenity, potentially cause noise escalation plus impact on bikes/cars in terms of dust/spray etc.

Also, the units, as submitted, actually failed the NHDC noise requirements without the addition of noise reduction treatment in the form of large louvre  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Installation of 3no. retractable awnings (as amended by drawing 015A).

RESOLVED: That application 17/02297/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Installation of 3no. retractable awnings (as amended by drawing 015A).

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.

He advised that the applicant had agreed to reduce the depth of the awnings from 2.5 metres to 2 metres to prevent any overhand to the footway.

Ms Tracey Grainger thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02297/1.

Ms Grainger informed Members that the size and proposed bright red vermillion colour of the awnings is completely out of character with the red brick building and the conservation area. We suggested east elevation awnings of a more tasteful grey or green colour, with matching parasols at the front, but this offer was declined.

The awnings logo includes the word ‘Wine’ but no alcohol license has been applied for or granted.

NHDC set certain parameters around planning for this site and this was subsequently written into the 13 apartment leases and 1 retail lease to protect the leaseholders.

Notwithstanding these proposals are outside the terms of the applicants lease, our objections are legitimate on both planning grounds and on a stand alone basis.

You yourselves have admitted that you did not envisage a restaurant/wine bar but something more discreet such as a light touch cafe or deli and all we ask is that the terms and spirit of the original planning and our rights to enjoy our new homes are fully respected.

The Chairman thanked Ms Grainger for her presentation.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the awnings would be fully retractable and therefore may not be extended all of the time.

Members commented that normally when awnings were attached to a business, this was followed by table and chairs being placed outside which often caused problems for those using the pavements and queried whether a condition could be added that forbade the placing of chairs and tables on the footways.

They queried whether the colour of the awnings had been discussed during negotiations

The Area Planning Officer advised that the land under the awnings was within the curtilage of the building and therefore would not encroach on the highway.

In respect of the colour of the awnings, discussions were held with the applicant, however they did not wish to amend the colour as this was a corporate branding.

Members debated the introduction of café culture in this area and mixed views were expressed regarding whether this was an appropriate place and how this would affect the residents of the apartments above. They also discussed in some detail the proposed colour of the awnings and whether or not colours would clash with surrounding businesses or compliment the area.

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that the canvass, that created the colour, was not technically the development and as such could be changed at any time without the need for further permission. It was therefore not within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Installation of 3no. retractable awnings including integral advertisement logo's and text Logo's and text written.

RESOLVED: That application 17/02298/1AD be GRANTED advertisement consent, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Installation of 3no. retractable awnings including integral advertisement logos and text Logo's and text written.

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.

Members expressed some concern regarding the wording that may be placed on the awning and queried what enforcement powers were available should the wording not be as stated. Concern was also expressed at the word “wine” being used when a licence was required to sell wine.

RESOLVED: That application 17/02298/1AD be GRANTED advertisement consent, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Raising of roof to provide first floor and to facilitate conversion of single storey bungalow into a chalet bungalow  with additional single storey side and rear side extension, following demolition of existing rear conservatory. (as amended by plan nos. 01SC and 01SP A received on 9/11/17).

RESOLVED: That application 17/02008/1HH be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Raising of roof to provide first floor and to facilitate conversion of single storey bungalow into a chalet bungalow with additional single storey side and rear side extension, following demolition of existing rear conservatory. (as amended by plan nos. 01SC and 01SP A received on 9/11/17).

The Area Planning officer advised that a letter had been received from the occupier of 180 Whitehill Road who raised no objection to the increase in the height to the property at 22 Broadmead. The resident commented that many bungalows in the area were being converted into 2 storey dwellings suitable for growing families.

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.

Mr Brian Foreman thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02008/1HH.

Mr Foreman informed Members that he lived at 24 Broadmead which was a chalet bungalow.

The original architects design statement stated that this was a conversion form a single storey bungalow to a double storey house. The revised application had changed little and showed a 6 bedroomed house from a 3 bedroomed bungalow.

This was not just using the existing loft space, but raising the roof approximately 12 feet above his property.

According to Wikipedia, a chalet bungalow was where the area enclosed within pitched roof contains rooms and is fully integrated into the fabric of the property.

The Oxford English Dictionary had a similar definition that it was a type of bungalow in the style of a chalet, specifically a bungalow with living space in the loft.

To try to get this passed as a chalet bungalow seemed false and misleading. It was an overdevelopment which was totally out of character with other nearby properties in Broadmead.

At one time a 33 percent increase seemed to be the norm, but this, with a front porch and rear kitchen extension was more like 3 times the existing bungalow.

Crucial errors by the architects in terminology and the important omission of a parking plan made this unacceptable.

The Planning Officer had compounded the errors with too many factual mistakes and a failure to include the wrap around material changes to the garage and kitchen walls, not using brick made it totally out of character. This confusing report and conclusion was therefore unreliable.

Mr Foreman highlighted some of the areas that he perceived as inaccurate as follows:

Paragraph 3.1

Broadmead was one word not two and the last paragraph stated no 22 instead of no 24.

Paragraph 4.1.1

The windows in the second storey were not dormer. Chambers Dictionary stated that a dormer window was a small window with a gable projecting from a sloping roof.

Whitehorse Lane did not exist in Hitchin and if Whitehill Road was intended to be used, this had a different colour of brick and was unrelated to the street scene in this part of Broadmead.

Paragraph 4.2.1

This  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

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 and drew attention to the following:

Appeals Lodged

Land North of Luton Road Offley

The Planning Inspectorate originally advised that this was to be held as a public enquiry however officers had asked them to reconsider this method of inspection and were awaiting a decision.

Appeal Decisions

Whitwell West

The appeal decision had not been included with the agenda and therefore had been tabled.

The appeal had been allowed and costs had been awarded for two reasons. Firstly, that the reason for refusal could not be substantiated in any meaningful way and secondly, that the appellant claimed that the Council was not proactive enough in helping him in negotiating a Section 106 agreement and the Inspector agreed with his assessment.

Land at Junction of Pottersheath Road and Danesbury Park Road

The appeal was withdrawn and a new application had been received for the same development.

RESOLVED: That the report entitled Planning Appeals be noted.