Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

Having given due notice Councillor Terry Tyler advised that he was substituting for Councillor Paul Clark.

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

Having given due notice Councillor Terry Tyler advised that he was substituting for Councillor Paul Clark.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on the 17 January 2018.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Control Committee held on 17 January 2018 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 17 January 2018 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.

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; 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, 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 6 registered speakers and 2 Member Advocates (Councillors Hemingway and Strong) were present..

The Chairman confirmed that the 6 registered speakers and 2 Member Advocates (Councillors Hemingway and Strong) were present..

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Construction Management Plan & Traffic Management Plan - Condition 6 -  Holwell route by CALA dated 31/10/17 Construction Route Plan - Arrival and Departure via Holwell by Waterman Infrastructure & Environment Ltd dated 31

October 2017 Road safety audit of the laybys by Mayer Brown dated October 2017 Safety Audit Response Sheet by Waterman dated 19.10.17 Road Safety

Appraisal by Mayer Brown dated 27th October 2017 Plan number 0049 rev A01 entitled Bus and large crane vehicle tracking by Waterman dated October 2017 (as Discharge of Condition of Planning Permission 15/01618/1 granted 25/05/2016).

RESOLVED:That, in respect of application 17/02778/1DOC, the details submitted pursuant to condition no. 6 of planning permission 15/01618/1 be REFUSED for the reason set out below, and that the requirements of condition 6 are not discharged.

REASON FOR REFUSAL:Notwithstanding the additional mitigation measures proposed in this application the Local Planning Authority does not consider that there could be a satisfactory or safe construction traffic route through Holwell. The proposed Construction Management Plan therefore conflicts with the requirements of Policy T1 of the North Hertfordshire District Submission Local Plan (2011-2031).

Construction Management Plan & Traffic Management Plan - Condition 6 -  Holwell route by CALA dated 31/10/17 Construction Route Plan - Arrival and Departure via Holwell by Waterman Infrastructure & Environment Ltd dated 31 October 2017 Road safety audit of the laybys by Mayer Brown dated October 2017 Safety Audit Response Sheet by Waterman dated 19.10.17 Road Safety Appraisal by Mayer Brown dated 27th October 2017 Plan number 0049 rev A01 entitled Bus and large crane vehicle tracking by Waterman dated October 2017 (as Discharge of Condition of Planning Permission 15/01618/1 granted 25/05/2016).

The Development and Conservation Manager introduced Manjinder Sehmi (Hertfordshire Highways) and Lyndsay McCauley (Opus International), who would be available to answer any questions regarding highways matters.

The Development and Conservation Manager advised Members that there was an update to the report as follows:

Paragraph 1.34

At the time that the report was written there had not been a start date for the combined appeals against two earlier decisions of this committee to refuse construction management plans using the Holwell in and out route for construction traffic to this site.

The Planning Inspectorate had now informed the Council of a start date of 6 March 2018.

The appeals would be considered together but separate decisions would be made on each appeal by the appointed inspector.

The appeal procedure had been confirmed as written representations for both appeals.

All interested parties had been informed and had been advised how they could make their written comments to the Planning Inspector.

The Council had until 10 April 2018 to provide any additional statement of case, but committee reports and decision notices had already been sent to the Inspector.

The Council also had until 19 March 2018 to respond, in full, to the appellant’s application for a full award of costs against the authority.

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

The Development and Conservation Manager advised the Committee that this was effectively the same application that was presented to the committee on 28 September 2017 with additional measures.

The recommendation is for approval, subject to completion of the associated S278 agreement between the applicant and the Highway Authority, to secure the delivery of the additional passing places.

Paragraph 4.2.2 detailed the additional mitigation as being:

·                Signs installed at each end of the route warning that this is a construction route:

·                Long vehicle detector signs placed at each side of the sharpest bend on Waterloo Lane:

·                One week notice required for vehicles grater than 10m in length to inform Highway Authority who may require temporary road closures or use of escort vehicles;

·                Use of remote holding bays on the A1 rather than the A600 as previously proposed.

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that Members now needed to decide if these proposed additional mitigation measure were sufficient to overcome the refusal of the previous application presented on 28 September 2017.

If Members were minded to support the recommendation he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Residential development of 180 dwellings comprising 21 x 1 bedroom apartments; 18 x 2 bedroom apartments; 18 x 2 bedroom houses; 63 x 3 bedroom houses; 56 x 4 bedroom houses; and 4 x 5 bedroom houses; new vehicular access onto Bedford Road, associated garages and car parking space, public open space, landscaping and ancillary works. (As amended 2/2/18).

RESOLVED: That application 17/02175/1 be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Residential development of 180 dwellings comprising 21 x 1 bedroom apartments; 18 x 2 bedroom apartments; 18 x 2 bedroom houses; 63 x 3 bedroom houses; 56 x 4 bedroom houses; and 4 x 5 bedroom houses; new vehicular access onto Bedford Road, associated garages and car parking space, public open space, landscaping and ancillary works. (As amended 2/2/18).

The Area Planning Officer advised that there were a number of updates to the report as follows:

Hertfordshire County Council Property Services

Updated financial contributions based on the slight reduction in the number of dwellings had been provided

The authority required slightly higher contributions for the lower and middle schools and a slightly lower sum for the Upper school contribution.

In addition, a slightly lower contribution was required for libraries provision.

Henlow Parish Council

Additional comments had been received that asked the Committee to note that the application site was adjacent to Henlow Camp rather than Lower Stondon and that the report should be amended to clarify that Henlow Camp settlement was entirely outside of the administrative boundary of North Hertfordshire and should not be referred to as a Category A settlement. 

Conservation Officer comments

The Council’s Conservation officer had formally confirmed an objection to the proposed development based on the development failing to satisfy sections 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy framework as the proposals constituted poor design contrary to Paragraph 64 of the Framework.

NHDC Environmental Health Officer

The submitted noise assessment had been reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Protection officer and he advised that the mitigation measures were appropriate and acceptable.

As such the officer recommends an appropriately worded condition should the Committee be minded to grant planning permission.       

Applicant

A statement had been received from Barrett David Wilson North Thames and the Committee was asked to consider the following points:

·                The site was identified for housing in the emerging local plan and would deliver 180 homes in sustainable location;

·                If approved, the applicant could deliver 65 dwellings a year assisting the Council’s housing target and five year land supply and providing 40% affordable housing;

·                Statutory consultees had not objected to the development;

·                Significant additional planting had been provided to screen the development and enhance the public footpaths;

·                Footpath extensions were proposed as well as a considerable extension to public realm;

·                The company had given a formal undertaking to meet the costs of a legal agreement which would be reflective of the heads of terms set out in the officer report. The drafting of the Section 106 agreement could therefore be undertaken without delay;

·                The company believed that the scheme would deliver a significant range of benefits meeting the social, economic and environmental objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework;

·                If not approved the Council would need to find further greenfield sites to meet its housing target, the timescale of which may be detrimental to the delivery of homes through the emerging plan.   

Objection

A letter had been received from Mr Crowe of Turnpike Lane Ickleford  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline application (all matters reserved except access) for residential development up to 44 dwellings.

RESOLVED:

(1)     That, subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement, application 17/02180/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager;

(2)     That, should a satisfactory Section 106 agreement not be completed by 1 May 2018 (or any later date agreed between the parties), application 17/02180/1 be REFUSED planning permission with the reason for refusal being that there is no satisfactory agreement such that would be necessary to mitigate the effects of development.

Outline application (all matters reserved except access) for residential development up to 44 dwellings.

Prior to the item being presented Councillors Barnard, Hill and Muir sought legal advice as to whether they could take part in the debate and vote regarding this application as it was a County Council application and they were County Councillors.

The Planning Lawyer advised that any Member that, as this application could be considered by the County Council Planning Committee, any Member that also served on the County Council Planning Committee would only be able to vote at one of the meetings and therefore, if they voted at this meeting would be unable to vote at the County meeting. It was up to the individual Member to make a decision as to which they wished to vote at.

Councillors Barnard and Muir stated that they would remain in the room and take part in the debate and vote.

Councillor Hill advised that she would remain in the room, but take no part in the debate nor would she vote.

The Development Officer advised that the Section 106 agreement had not yet been signed, it was however expected to be completed before the end of April 2018. However, if it was not completed in time:

 Recommendation 6.1 contained in the report read:

“That Members resolve to GRANT permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory section 106 agreement and the conditions set out below”

New Recommendation 6.2 to read:

“That, should a satisfactory Section 106 agreement not be completed by 1 May 2018 (or any later date agreed between the parties), application 17/02180/1 be REFUSED planning permission with the reason for refusal being that there is no satisfactory agreement such that would be necessary to mitigate the effects of development.”

The Development 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 asked for clarification that the current access from the White Way would be used to access the development and whether this would be sufficient for use by the proposed development.

The Development Officer confirmed that the existing access position would be used for vehicle access and that the Highway Authority was satisfied with this proposal, with a number of conditions.

It was proposed, seconded and

RESOLVED:

(1)     That, subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement, application 17/02180/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager;

(2)     That, should a satisfactory Section 106 agreement not be completed by 1 May 2018 (or any later date agreed between the parties), application 17/02180/1 be REFUSED planning permission with the reason for refusal being that there is no satisfactory agreement such that would be necessary to mitigate the effects of development.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of two 2-bed apartments with a ground floor commercial unit (Use Class A1, A2 or A3) including car parking and creation of new vehicular access of London Road (as amended by drawings B003C and B004A received 09/01/2018).

RESOLVED: That application 17/02652/1 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Erection of two 2-bed apartments with a ground floor commercial unit (Use Class A1, A2 or A3) including car parking and creation of new vehicular access of London Road (as amended by drawings B003C and B004A received 09/01/2018).

The Development 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 Development and Conservation noted that a relaxation of car parking standard would be required to enable this proposal to be granted.

The car parking standards did allow flexibility where the development was in an appropriate location and in this case there was a public car park and it was within walking distance of the train station, there it was considered suitable for a reduction in the car parking standards

Parish Councillor Roger Wilcocks, Knebworth Parish Council, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02652/1.

Parish Councillor Willcocks informed Members that although this was a small site, it had to be considered along with the development on the former Chas Lowe site opposite this development.

The main issue was, as ever, regarding parking.

The Chas Lowe site had an open area which offered parking for evenings and weekends, although this would be completely used for buildings.

The intention on this site was to build two 2 bedroomed flats with some parking on site and the provision of access to the site would result in the parking on the road itself being reduced.

Parking was a continuing issue in Knebworth and it was getting worse, a controlled Parking Zone was introduced recently and other parking in the village had to be paid for.

Due to the busy train station that catered for 600,000 passengers each year including people who drive into Knebworth and park all day, there was an acute shortage of parking.

He asked that parking standard be maintained on the site, or failing that Section 106 contributions to be payable for the Scout Hut, Parish Office or other community benefit.

Members asked for clarification as to whether the development would be restricted to those aged over 55.

Mr Willcocks advised that this was not an age restricted development and that the provision of three car parking spaces did not meet the Council’s own policy standards. He also stated that the parking opposite was insufficient for the development and the shops.

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor Willcocks for his presentation.

Councillor Steve Hemingway, Member Advocate, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02652/1.

Councillor Hemingway informed Members that he supported the Parish Council and that parking was key when considering this development.

This was a commuter village with half a million passenger movements every year and, was the closest station to London with free on street parking therefore, on weekdays, every safe free parking space was taken by 7am by commuters.

.

Employees in village were very unhappy as they could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.

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. 12/01037/1). (As amended by plans received 22/02/13; 24/04/13 and 13/06/13).

RESOLVED: That application 12/01903/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and subject to the following amended and additional conditions:

Condition 4 to read:

“No development shall commence until the highways access works shown on plans (S715PM-E02B; E03) hereby submitted, approved and described by LPA Reference Number 17/00666/1 and relating to the formation of an access road from Old North Road to serve proposed residential development of 39 units at Site D, Land to the north of Housman Avenue and Lindsay Close, ("the Works") that would allow the appropriate means of access to this Development [LPA Reference Number 12/01903/1] ("the Development"), have been completed in accordance with these approved drawings or any alternative access that as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

No part of the Development shall be occupied until the Works to implement the approved access have been completed to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Either the approved access or another later approved access would be satisfactory to serve this development.

Reason: To ensure the proposed development has appropriate and adequate highways access and is acceptable in terms of highways safety.

Condition 30 to read:

“The approved details of landscaping (in relation to the internal residential area

including the southern boundary of the site) shall be carried out before the end of the first planting season following either the first occupation of any of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced during the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority agrees in writing to vary or dispense with this requirement.

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

Condition 31 to read:

“Prior to the commencement of development a Site Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority following consultation with the Waste Planning Authority. The approved Site Waste Management Plan shall be implemented on site.

Reason: In order to reduce the amount of waste produced on site.”

Condition 32 to read:

“Prior to the commencement of development a detailed assessment of the impact of the Royston Water Recycling Centre in relation to odours, lighting, noise and traffic impacts shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Anglian Water. Any mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby approved.

Reason: To protect the amenities of future occupiers.”

Councillor Fiona Hill returned to the room.

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).

Prior to the item being discussed Councillor Fiona Hill (Vice-Chairman) declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest as she live on the road adjacent to the site. She stated that she would leave the room for the duration of the debate and vote.

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

Recommendation 6.1

Since the report was written the necessary Section 106 Obligation, which now included the requisite 40 percent affordable housing in line with emerging Local Plan policy, had been completed and if Members were minded to support the recommendation planning permission could be granted for this application which dated back to 2012.

Therefore the Recommendation should read:

“That application 12/01903/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report”

Condition 4

The current approved access to the site was the subject of a separate planning permission, the purpose of Condition 4 was to link the two developments.

Therefore an additional sentence at the end of Condition 4 was required to read:

“Either the approved access or another later approved access would be satisfactory to serve this development”

Additional Conditions

There were also additional conditions 30, 31 and 32 recommended to deal with approved landscaping, site waste management plans and assessment of the Royston Water centre.

NPPF

The recommendation remains the same despite the draft National Planning Policy Framework.

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

Councillor Hunter advised that he had been previously spoken against other developments in the area as he felt it was over development and therefore would be abstaining from the vote.

It was proposed, seconded and

RESOLVED: That application 12/01903/1 be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and subject to the following amended and additional conditions:

Condition 4 to read:

“No development shall commence until the highways access works shown on plans (S715PM-E02B; E03) hereby submitted, approved and described by LPA Reference Number 17/00666/1 and relating to the formation of an access road from Old North Road to serve proposed residential development of 39 units at Site D, Land to the north of Housman Avenue and Lindsay Close, ("the Works") that would allow the appropriate means of access to this Development [LPA Reference Number 12/01903/1] ("the Development"), have been completed in accordance with these approved drawings or any alternative access that as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

No part  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

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:

Land North of Luton Road, Offley

This appeal would be heard by public inquiry that would commence on 12 June 2018.

The Council had employed an independent planning consultant to be their expert witness and had also employed the QC who was dealing with the Local Plan to be the advocate at the inquiry.

A report would be presented to the Committee in April recommending that the reasons for refusal be slightly amended in order to put more emphasis on the setting of the listed buildings on the site and separate that issue from the landscaping.

A Member commented that, if this application were approved it would change the character of the village forever and queried whether there was a reason for refusal that could cover this issue.

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that the repot regarding this had not yet been considered and that Members could discuss this at the meeting, at which the planning consultant would be present.

RESOLVED: That the report entitled Planning Appeals be noted.