Agenda, decisions and minutes

Planning Control Committee
Thursday, 19th April, 2018 7.30 pm

Venue: Spirella Ballroom, Icknield Way, Letchworth Garden City

Contact: Ian Gourlay (01462) 474403 

Items
No. Item

128.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Decision:

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors David Barnard (Chairman), Bill Davidson and Harry Spencer-Smith.

 

Having given due notice Councillor Faye Frost advised that she was substituting for Councillor Barnard.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors David Barnard (Chairman), Bill Davidson and Harry Spencer-Smith.

 

Having given due notice Councillor Faye Frost advised that she was substituting for Councillor Barnard.

129.

MINUTES - 15 MARCH 2018 pdf icon PDF 323 KB

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 15 March 2018.

Decision:

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Control Committee held on 15 March 2018 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chairman.

Minutes:

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Control Committee held on 15 March 2018 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chairman.

130.

NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS

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

 

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

Decision:

There was no other business.

Minutes:

There was no other business.

131.

CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

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.

 

Decision:

(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.

Minutes:

(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.

132.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

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.

Decision:

The Chairman confirmed that the 8 registered speakers and 1 Member Advocate were present.

Minutes:

The Chairman confirmed that the 8 registered speakers and 1 Member Advocate were present.

133.

17/01781/1 - LAND NORTH OF, LUTON ROAD, OFFLEY pdf icon PDF 328 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Outline planning permission for up to 70 residential dwellings (including 40% affordable housing), new village gateway, new retail outlet/village facility, planting, landscaping, informal public open space, children's play area and sustainable drainage system (SuDS). All matters reserved with the exception of access.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED:That, in respect of application 17/01781/1,

 

(A)      the Council’s putative reason for refusal of this application to be presented at the forthcoming Public Inquiry be revised to the following:

 

1.      By reason of its siting beyond the built limits of Offley, on open allotments and farmland in an area of countryside adjacent to the village, the proposal would be detrimental to the rural character and appearance of the area.  The urban form of the development would afford significant and demonstrable harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside in this sensitive location adjacent to the village of Offley. The proposal would be harmful to the landscape qualities of the area and given that the site is prominent from several public vantage points it would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area and in particular the users of public footpaths within and in the vicinity of the site.  The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Policy 6 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 with alterations and specific policies of the Framework.  The development would also be contrary to Policy SP5 of the North Hertfordshire Emerging Local Plan 2011-2031.

 

2.      The proposed development would afford harm to the setting of Great Offley Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings.  The site presents an attractive open setting to the Conservation Area and these nearby listed buildings and the ability to appreciate these designated heritage assets.  The proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and would detract from the setting of the listed buildings.  The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of these designated heritage assets, which would not be outweighed by the public benefits of delivering new housing development.  The proposal would therefore conflict with the aims of Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

 

3.      The submitted planning application has not been accompanied by a valid legal undertaking (in the form of a Section 106 Obligation) setting out how the shop would be delivered, along with the provision of 40% affordable housing and other necessary obligations as set out in the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted November 2006) and the Planning obligation guidance – toolkit for Hertfordshire: Hertfordshire County Council’s requirements January 2008. The secure delivery of these obligations and provision of the allotments is required to mitigate the impact of the development on the identified services in accordance with the adopted Planning Obligations SPD, Policy 51 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 - with Alterations (Saved Polices 2007) or Proposed Local Plan Policy HS2 of the Council's Proposed Submission Local Plan (2011-2031). Without this mechanism to secure these provisions the development scheme cannot be considered as sustainable form of development contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

4.      [Not now required].

 

5.    The proposed development lies immediately adjacent to an Area of Archaeological  ...  view the full decision text for item 133.

Minutes:

Outline planning permission for up to 70 residential dwellings (including 40% affordable housing), new village gateway, new retail outlet/village facility, planting, landscaping, informal public open space, children's play area and sustainable drainage system (SuDS). All matters reserved with the exception of access.

 

[Prior to the consideration of this item, Councillor Faye Frost made a Declarable Interest, and clarified that her father-in-law did not own the land in the application site, but used it as set aside, with the agreement of the landowners, Pilkington Estates.]

 

The Development and Conservation Manager presented a report in respect of planning application 17/01781/1.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager introduced Shaun Greaves (GCPP Planning Consultants), who would be acting as the expert witness on behalf of the Council in the upcoming Planning Inquiry.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that Members would have seen the written submission from Councillor David Barnard supporting the officer recommendation.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager referred to some changes to the text of the report as follows:

 

·           Paragraph 4.3.4 – the word “re-assed” in the ninth line should be “re-assessed”;

·           Paragraph 4.3.6 – the last sentence changed to read “PROW 16 which passes through the site.  In addition there will be significant impacts on Luton Road and the edge of Offley”; and

·           Reason for Refusal 1 – the addition in the second sentence of the word “to” between the words “harm” and “the”.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager confirmed the appointment of Jonathan Billingsley of the Landscape Partnership to be the Council’s second expert witness who would be giving evidence on landscape impact at the Public Inquiry.  Shaun Greaves had already been appointed to give evidence on the setting of listed buildings, harm to the conservation area and the character of the area and the general planning balance.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager explained that the first two recommended putative reasons for refusal were the most important and could not, in his view, be overcome – these reasons were the basis of the professional case to refuse permission.

 

In respect of reason for refusal 3, the Development and Conservation Manager commented that this still stood, but he confirmed that the Council had received the first draft of a Section 106 Obligation and would continue to work with the appellant and their solicitors to try and ensure that the Section 106 Obligation was in place at the time of the Public Inquiry.  This needed to be in place as, in the event that the Inspector was minded to allow the appeal, all parties needed to ensure that the necessary Section 106 Obligation was in place to ensure that the necessary payments and affordable housing could be secured.

 

In relation to reason for refusal 4, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that he had received an update from the Lead Local Flood Authority, who confirmed that through a series of discussions with the appellant they now withdrew their objection to the proposal.  Therefore, this reason for refusal could now be removed from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

134.

17/01622/1 - THE STATION, STATION APPROACH, KNEBWORTH, SG3 6AT pdf icon PDF 490 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Erection of 3 storey building to provide 9 x 2 bed flats; conversion and extension of store to 1 bed house and new vehicular access off of Station Approach (as amended by drawings received 12th and 25th October 2017).

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 17/01622/1 be REFUSED planning permission, for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposed development, due to the loss of most of the public house garden and the introduction of residential units in such close proximity to the public house, would be prejudicial to the retention and development of this important community facility, which is a designated Asset of Community Value and the only public house in Knebworth. As such, the development would be contrary to paragraphs 28 and 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework and contrary to the spirit of Policy ETC7 of the submitted Local Plan 2011 – 2031.

 

2.    The proposed block of 9 flats, due to its size, would present a cramped appearance in the street scene and this, together with its overall design, would be out of keeping with the character and visual amenities of Station Approach and Park Lane. As such the development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Section 7. Requiring good design, Policy 57 – Residential Guidelines and Standards of North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 with Alterations and Policy D1 – Sustainable Design of the submitted Local Plan 2011 – 2031.

 

3.    The proposed development would fail to provide a sufficient number of parking spaces to serve the new flats, to meet the Council’s current minimum car parking standards and would result in the reduction of the parking space available for the public house. This would result in severe harm upon the parking capacity of the local highway network. The development would, therefore, be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Section 4 - Promoting Sustainable Transport; North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No 2 with Alterations, Policy 55 – Car Parking Standards; and the submitted Local Plan 2011 – 2031, Policy T2 – Parking.

 

4.    Due to the close proximity of the proposed flats and the residential conversion of the store building of the existing public house, the living conditions of the future occupiers would be prejudiced by the general noise and odour associated with the public house. In addition to this, insufficient outdoor amenity space would be provided to meet the needs of the future occupiers. The development would, therefore, be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 17; North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No.2 with Alterations, Policy 57 – Residential Guidelines and Standards; and submitted Local Plan 2011 -2031, Policy D3 – Protecting Living Conditions.

 

5.    The submitted planning application has not been accompanied by a valid legal undertaking (in the form of a Section 106 Obligation) securing the provision of planning obligations as set out in the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted November 2006) and the Planning obligation guidance – toolkit for Hertfordshire: Hertfordshire County Council’s requirements January 2008. The secure delivery of these obligations is required to mitigate the impact of the development on the identified services in accordance with the adopted Planning Obligations SPD, Policy 51 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 -  ...  view the full decision text for item 134.

Minutes:

Erection of 3 storey building to provide 9 x 2 bed flats; conversion and extension of store to 1 bed house and new vehicular access off of Station Approach (as amended by drawings received 12th and 25th October 2017).

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of planning application 17/01622/1.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that comments had been received from the Lead Local Flood Authority, who had recommended 2 additional conditions relating to requiring more details of the SUDS feature before development commenced, and to ensure the mitigation measures were carried out.

 

The Senior Planning Officer stated that comments had also been received from NHDC Environmental Health, who had recommended 3 conditions and 1 informative summarised as follows:

 

·      Requiring a scheme of noise mitigation measures for approval;

·      No plant to be installed at the flats until a noise assessment had been approved; and

·      Prior to kitchen extraction system serving the Pub being used, the odour abatement measures detailed in the submitted report shall be fully implemented and maintained in perpetuity.

 

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Section 106 Agreement had been signed by the applicant, and was with the Hertfordshire County Council solicitor for sealing, and then back to NHDC for sealing and completion.

 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that she would like to add the further condition regarding a bat survey, as follows:

 

“Condition for bat survey - Prior to the commencement of the development, hereby approved, dusk emergence / dawn re-entry surveys shall be undertaken during May – August inclusive (possibly September if the weather remains warm) to determine with confidence whether bats are roosting and, should this be the case, an outline bat mitigation strategy based on the results shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in full. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.”

 

The Senior Planning Officer also wished to amend the reason to proposed Condition 18, relating to the restriction of the flat above the pub, to replace the words “the viability of” with the words “in the interest of”.

 

The Senior Planning Officer referred to an amendment to Paragraph 4.3.24 of report, relating to parking, in order to omit the word ‘not’ as there were marked bays, albeit faded, and add the word ‘overall’ at the end of the next sentence so that it read:

 

“The existing car park that serves The Station PH does have marked bays. The proposed low level planting strip to the front of the site would lead to a loss of 1 or 2 spaces overall.”

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented a series of slides, which comprised photographs of the application site and drawings.

 

Ms Lisa Nash (Save our Station Pub Campaign) and Parish Councillor Roger Willcocks (Knebworth Parish Council) addressed the Committee in objection to application 17/01622/1.

 

Ms Nash advised that the Station Pub was the only pub in Knebworth, a village  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.

135.

18/00572/FP - LAND REAR OF THE ROOKERY, KINGS WALDEN ROAD, OFFLEY, SG5 3DX pdf icon PDF 399 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Erection of two 3-bed, three 4-bed and one 5-bed dwellings including new vehicular access off Harris Lane, widening of existing Harris Lane and parking and associated works.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 18/00572/FP be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

 

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 

2.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out wholly in accordance with the details specified in the application and supporting approved documents and plans listed above.

 

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with details which form the basis of this grant of permission.

 

3.       Details and/ or samples of materials to be used on all external surfaces of the development including roof materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved materials.

 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity

 

4.       Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended no development as set out in Class(es) A, B, C, D, E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order, (or any subsequent Statutory Instrument which revokes, amends and/or replaces those provisions) shall be carried out without first obtaining a specific planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: Given the nature of this development, the Local Planning Authority considers that development which would normally be "permitted development" should be retained within planning control in the interests of the character and amenities of the area.

 

5.       No development shall take place (including site clearance) until an adequately detailed Biodiversity and Landscape Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The content of the plan need only indicate:

 

The location of the hedgerows that are to be retained and any management measures proposed;

The location of bird boxes / tubes;

Measures to translocate the existing orchard;

A suitable lighting strategy; and

A timetable for implementation

 

The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development results in no net loss of biodiversity.

 

6.       Before occupation of any of the houses hereby permitted, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the following details: a) which, if any, of the existing vegetation is to be removed and which is to be retained b) what new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas are to be planted, together with the species proposed, location and the size and density of planting c) the location and type of any new walls, fences or other means of enclosure and any hardscaping proposed d) details of any earthworks proposed e) the future management and maintenance of the landscaping.

 

Reason: To ensure the submitted details are sufficiently comprehensive to enable  ...  view the full decision text for item 135.

Minutes:

Erection of two 3-bed, three 4-bed and one 5-bed dwellings including new vehicular access off Harris Lane, widening of existing Harris Lane and parking and associated works.

 

The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of planning application 18/00572/FP.

 

The Area Planning Officer advised that Members would have received a statement from Councillor David Barnard writing in support of the planning application.  Councillor Barnard had invited the Committee to grant permission, subject to design negotiations.

 

The Area Planning Officer explained that the applicant’s agent had submitted revised information including a Transport Assessment and amended drawings to address the highways reasons for refusal, and the Highway Authority had indicated that these amendments were likely to be acceptable.  Hertfordshire Highways had been formally consulted, but it was expected that that they would confirm that their objection was removed.  In these circumstances, he advised the Committee that Reason for Refusal No. 3 was withdrawn from the recommendation.

 

The Area Planning Officer presented a series of slides, which comprised photographs of the application site and drawings.  At the conclusion of the presentation, he asked the Committee to support the officer recommendation for refusal, excluding the highway reason for refusal.

 

Mr Michael Margerison (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of application 18/00572/FP.

 

Mr Margerison advised that the site did not form part of an established garden and was effectively self-contained.  It was not in the Conservation Area nor the Green Belt, and it was understood that the site was designated in the emerging Local Plan as being within the Great Offley village boundary.

 

Mr Margerison commented that there had not been many objections to the application, and the proposal was supported by the Parish Council.  The applicant would look to work with them and residents on any areas of concern.  Part of the site already benefitted from planning consent for three dwellings, and the applicant was looking to utilise the whole of the site by constructing a further three homes.  Consequently, there was a relatively small increase in terms of traffic generation, but by using the whole of the site this meant that the developer could improve the access onto Harris Way to ensure that all vehicles exited in forward gear.

 

Mr Margerison stated that the design of the scheme paid particular attention to minimising its impact on The Rookery, with gabled end of the nearest new dwelling being screened by hedges, some 46 metres away.  In addition, the design of the new dwellings adopted the style of nearby agricultural buildings thereby retaining the rural character bordering the conservation area.

 

Mr Margerison considered that the 6 units would provide much needed new housing to the village and would help to support local businesses.  The developer was a local company, building no more than 20 units a year, and took great pride in the quality of design, particularly in sensitive areas.

 

After a period of questions and answers, the Chairman thanked Mr Margerison for his presentation.

 

In respect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

136.

17/04392/FP - BAILEYS CLOSE FARM, PASTURE LANE, BREACHWOOD GREEN, SG4 8NY pdf icon PDF 587 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Residential development comprising of 4 x 1 bedroom flats, 6 x 2 bedroom houses and 8 x 3 bedroom houses with associated landscaping, parking and vehicular access following demolition of existing commercial buildings.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 17/04392/FP be REFUSED planning permission, for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Minutes:

Residential development comprising of 4 x 1 bedroom flats, 6 x 2 bedroom houses and 8 x 3 bedroom houses with associated landscaping, parking and vehicular access following demolition of existing commercial buildings.

 

The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of planning application 17/04392/1.

 

The Area Planning Officer advised that Members would have received a statement from Councillor David Barnard writing in support of the planning application.  Councillor Barnard had urged the Committee to grant permission, subject to a Section 106 Obligation and planning conditions.

 

The Area Planning Officer stated that he had received a formal response from the London Luton Airport Aerodrome Compliance Manager.  The airport advised that the proposed development did not conflict with the safeguarding criteria relating to the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces, however the design of the development should be such to minimise the risk of a bird strike hazard.  In addition, the airport advised that, as the development was close to the approach to the airport runway, external lighting schemes should be carefully designed to avoid light spill above the horizontal.  The Compliance Manager had also referred to Advice Notes 2 and 3 in respect of these issues.  Lastly, the airport would request details of any craneage associated with the development prior to commencement of works.

 

The Area Planning Officer had received a further comment from the Airport Chief Operations Officer, who asked that NHDC carefully considered the application as the new dwellings would be situated within the 63dB daytime noise contour and the 57dB night-time contour.  The Chief Operations Officer also commented that the development sat just outside, but very close to, the airport public safety zone (PSZ).

 

The Area Planning Officer reported that comments had also been received from the Hertfordshire Rights of Way Unit, who had advised that the new access may be beneficial as vehicles sometimes obstructed the current footpath 004.  The footpath should remain unobstructed at all times during construction works to ensure public safety.  Any deterioration of the footpath during works would need to be made good by the developer.  If a diversion was required during construction works a Traffic Regulation Order would be required. 

 

The Area Planning Officer advised that the applicant had submitted a revised Drainage Strategy Report dated April 2018.  This had been forwarded to the Lead Local Flood Authority for comment, although formal comments had not been received back from the Flood Authority.  Therefore, the Flood Risk objection raised by the Authority still stood and he advised that reason for refusal No. 5 remained as part of the recommendations.

 

The Area Planning Officer referred to typographical errors in Paragraphs 3.7 and 4.3.35 of the report.  In these paragraphs, reference was made to a Phase 1 Environmental Risk Assessment being required by the Environmental Health Officer.  This should in fact refer to a Phase II assessment, as the applicant had already provided a Phase I assessment.   

 

The Area Planning Officer presented a series of slides, which comprised photographs of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

137.

18/00273/FP - 1 HALF ACRE, HITCHIN, SG5 2XL pdf icon PDF 272 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Erection of private road security gates and garden wall.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 18/00273/FP be REFUSED planning permission, for the reason set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Minutes:

Erection of private road security gates and garden wall.      

 

The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of planning application 18/00273/1.

 

The Area Planning Officer advised that the Council had received two late comments from the Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor and the Council’s Waste Manager.

 

The Committee noted that the Police had confirmed 4 incidents of abandoned vehicles at the entrance to Half Acre.  However, they had commented that by gating off the road this would not solve the problem and it could restrict access by emergency service vehicles and refuse wagons.  They had commented that the submitted documents did not explain how the gates would operate and comply with the Gate Safe Scheme. The response had stated that the Police Crime Prevention Design Service did not encourage gated developments.

 

The Committee was informed that the Council’s Waste Services Manager had advised that refuse wagons are slightly longer than shown on the submitted drawing, which would mean that the gates would have to pushed back or open inwards.  A gate code entry system was recommended, with any codes being made available to the refuse collection crews.

 

The Area Planning Officer stated that these two consultation responses highlighted the potential problems of access by emergency services and refuse collection vehicles and the lack of information submitted did not help.  However, the issues of access were potentially overcome by further details to be secured by a planning condition, should the Committee be minded to grant consent.  Therefore, on balance, a second reason for refusal based on these matters was not recommended.       

 

The Area Planning Officer presented a series of slides, which comprised photographs of the application site and drawings.

 

Mrs Clara Odularu (Applicant) and Mrs Michelle Haddon (Neighbour) addressed the Committee in support of application 18/00273/FP.

 

Mrs Odularu advised that she represented the 11 families that resided in Half Acre in Hitchin.  She would be focussing on the Planning Officer’s recommended grounds for refusal, namely community cohesion and the visual impact of the proposed gates.

 

Mrs Odalaru drew attention to the appeal case cited by the Local Planning Authority of a gated community which was, in fact, in a village location, where it was proposed that the gates would be erected in front of a pedestrian pathway crossed by pedestrians on a frequent basis.  The Half Acre community was located at the mouth of the A505 road, on the edge of Hitchin Town.  Accordingly, the likelihood of passing pedestrians walking from the Town Centre to the A505 was very slim.

 

Mrs Odalaru stated that the pathways on both side of the road stopped at the entrance to Half Acre.  There was no opportunity or ability for pedestrians to walk past the homes in Half Acre.  She had resided in Half Acre for about 10 years and in that time she had seen a handful of pedestrians walking past her house.

 

In terms of visual impact, Mrs Odalaru commented that whilst the Planning Officer’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

138.

18/00322/FPH - 44 NEW CLOSE, KNEBWORTH, SG3 6NU pdf icon PDF 346 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Erection of art studio in rear garden. Erection of wall around side garden with decorative screen and landscaping to create courtyard (as amended by drawings received 12/03/2018).

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 18/00322/1be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, but with the removal of Condition 3, which had been included in the report in error.

Minutes:

Erection of art studio in rear garden. Erection of wall around side garden with decorative screen and landscaping to create courtyard (as amended by drawings received 12/03/2018).

  

The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of planning application 18/00322/1.

 

RESOLVED: That application 18/00322/1be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, but with the removal of Condition 3, which had been included in the report in error.

139.

PLANNING APPEALS pdf icon PDF 206 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the report entitled Planning Appeals be noted.

Minutes:

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report entitled Planning Appeals and drew attention to the following:

 

RESOLVED: That the report entitled Planning Appeals be noted.

Audio Recording - Session 1 MP3 26 MB

Additional documents: