Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Sarah Dingley.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Sarah Dingley.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on the 21 June 2018.

The minutes of this meeting are to follow.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on Thursday 21 June 2018 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chairman.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on Thursday 21 June 2018 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chairman.

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

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

There was no other business notified.

There was no other business notified.

Members are reminded that any declarations of interest in respect of any business set out in the agenda, should be declared as either a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest or Declarable Interest and are required to notify the Chairman of the nature of any interest declared at the commencement of the relevant item on the agenda.  Members declaring a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest must withdraw from the meeting for the duration of the item. Members declaring a Declarable Interest, wished to exercise a ‘Councillor Speaking Right’, must declare this at the same time as the interest, move to the public area before speaking to the item and then must leave the room before the debate and vote.

(1)    The Chairman welcomed the 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 do a sound recording of the meeting, but she asked them to not use flash and to disable any beeps or other sound notifications that emitted from their devices.  In addition, the Chairman had arranged for the sound at this particular meeting to be recorded;

(3)    The Chairman reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question;

(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 asked that, for the benefit of any members of the public present at the meeting, Officers announce their name and their designation to the meeting when invited to speak.

(6)    The Chairman clarified that each group of speakers would have a maximum of 5 minutes.  The bell would sound after 4 ½ 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 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 and wished to exercise a ‘Councillor Speaking Right’, must declare this at the same time as the interest, move to the public area before speaking to the item and then must leave the room before the debate and vote.

(1)    The Chairman welcomed the 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 do a sound recording of the meeting, but she asked them to not use flash and to disable any beeps or other sound notifications that emitted from their devices.  In addition, the Chairman had arranged for the sound at this particular meeting to be recorded;

(3)    The Chairman reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question;

(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 asked that, for the benefit of any members of the public present at the meeting, Officers announce their name and their designation to the meeting when invited to speak.

(6)    The Chairman clarified that each group of speakers would have a maximum of 5 minutes.  The bell would sound after 4 ½ 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 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 and wished to exercise a ‘Councillor Speaking Right’, must declare this at the same time as the interest, move to the public area before speaking to the item and then 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 five registered speakers and one Councillor Advocate were present.

The Chairman confirmed that the five registered speakers and one Councillor Advocate were present.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Reserved matters application for erection of 27 dwellings with access from Lucas Lane including scale, layout, design and landscaping (following the granting of outline planning permission reference 15/00192/1 granted 22/03/2016 - DEVELOPMENT A only).

RESOLVED: That planning application 18/00191/RM be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Area Planning Officer, who presented three additional conditions and an Informative.  In addition, the wording to condition 5 was amended.

Condition 5 (amended wording)

Any tree felled, lopped, topped, uprooted, removed or otherwise destroyed or killed contrary to the provisions of the tree retention condition above shall be replaced during the same or next planting season with another tree of a size and species as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

Condition 6

Before the development is first occupied, 0.65 metre x 0.65 metre pedestrian visibility splays shall be provided and permanently maintained both sides of each driveway.  They shall be measured from the point where the edges of the access way cross the highway boundary, 0.65 metres into the site and 0.65 metres along the highway boundary.  Therefore forming a triangular visibility splay.  Within which, there shall be no obstruction to visibility between 6oomm and 2.0 metres above the footway level.

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

Condition 7

Before the new access is first brought into use, vehicle to vehicle visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 2.6 metres in both directions shall be provided and permanently maintained.  Within which there shall be no obstruction to visibility between 600mm and 2.0 metres above the footway level.  These measurements shall be taken from the intersection point along the edge of the carriageway.

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

Condition 8

The access road to the residential development shall be 5.5 metres wide, that narrows to 4.8 metres as shown on swept path analysis drawing number Drawing Number WIE/SA/95/0001 revision A07 and drawing number PL.01 revision U.

Reason: To facilitate the free and safe flow of other traffic on the highway and the safety and convenience of pedestrians and people with a disability.

Highway Informative:

HCC recommends inclusion of the following highway informative to ensure that any works within the public highway are carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Highway Act 1980:

·                     Works to be undertaken on the adjoining highway shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority and in accordance with Hertfordshire County Council publication Roads in Hertfordshire Highway Design Guide. Before proceeding with the proposed development, the applicant shall follow the link below; https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/highways-roads-and-pavements/business-and-developer-information/development-management/highways-development-management.aspx or call on 0300 1234 047 to obtain the requirements for a section 278 agreement for the associated road works as part of the development. This should be carried out prior to any development work is carried out.

Reason:  To ensure that work undertaken on the highway is constructed to the current Highway Authority's specification, to an appropriate standard and by a contractor who is authorised to work in the Public Highway.

·                     Prior to commencement of the  ...  view the full decision text for item 29.

Reserved matters application for erection of 27 dwellings with access from Lucas Lane including scale, layout, design and landscaping (following the granting of outline planning permission reference 15/00192/1 granted 22/03/2016 – DEVELOPMENT A only).

The Area Planning Officer drew the Members attention to the following updates:-

1.      The amended plans had been received concerning the width of part of the internal access road.  The southern section of the access road had been increased to 4.8 metres in width following concerns raised by the Highway Authority.  The amended plans included an updated site layout plan and a tracking drawing submitted to demonstrate that a refuse vehicle could pass any car parked within the carriageway.

2.      The Highway Authority had confirmed that they had no objection to the amended plans subject to conditions and a planning informative.  Seven conditions were recommended in total, however, 4 of these were already on the outline permission, therefore, it was recommended that if permission was granted that just the three conditions that had not been included on the outline consent were attached together with the Informative.

3.      A letter received from Mrs Allen of Lavender Way Hitchin, had been circulated to all Members of the Committee.  Mrs Allen raised a number of issues which included general development in Hitchin and the granting of outline permission and traffic generated by the development.

4.      One typographical error in Paragraph 4.3.22 (Landscaping) on page 8 of the report.  The third line from the bottom of the page should read “The hedge along the western boundary….” Rather than the eastern boundary.

The Area Planning Officer reminded the Committee of the background to the development proposal and updated Members on progress to the site, planning conditions and Section 106 matters.  He reminded, also, the Members that the Council had already granted planning permission for a hybrid planning application which had concerned the sports club site in August 2015.  The hybrid application had contained two elements:-

(1)       A fully detailed planning permission for sports related development for both the Cricket Club and Blueharts Hockey Club; and

(2)       Outline planning permission for 27 dwellings including means of access off Lucas Lane.

He informed the committee that the sports development would consist of a floodlit all weather pitch, a replacement sports pavilion, a score board building with ancillary changing rooms, an 84 space carpark and an upgraded access road off Lucas Lane.

He stated that, the Council had considered that the benefit of the sports facilities to the wider community constituted very special circumstances required to permit housing as enabling development.

All conditions that had related to the sports development had been discharged and various obligations required under the legal agreement had been met.  Construction work was well-advanced with completion of all of the sports development due in December.

The Area Planning Officer stated the application put before the Committee that evening was seeking approval of the details of the housing development, involving the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the housing with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Conversion of existing 1-bed annex into self-contained dwelling.

RESOLVED:  That the planning application 18/01249/FP be REFUSED planning permission contrary to recommendation for the following reasons:

The proposed development, by reason of the intensification of use, restricted plot size and lack of landscaping, results in an overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of the visual and residential amenities of the locality.  As such, the development fails to achieve an adequately high standard of environment contrary to Policy 57 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan and Section 7 of the National Planning Framework.

Proactive statement amended to:

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

Conversion of existing 1-bed annex into self-contained dwelling.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of planning application 18/01249/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that two additional conditions had been recommended since the production of the report pertaining to drainage and visibility.

The Senior Planning Officer updated the Committee on the Proposal.  He gave the background as per the report, stating that Planning Permission had previously been granted for the erection of a single storey side annex extension to the dwelling and the current application was seeking permission for the separation of the existing house and the annex into two separate, self contained dwellings.

The first floor alterations, were not proposed as part of the approved scheme, and were not originally shown on the submitted drawings.  She explained that a site visit had confirmed that the creation of the useable space at first floor level had been undertaken and therefore amended drawings had been provided to show the situation.

Mrs Clare Little thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 18/01249/FP.

Mrs Little informed the Committee that she spoke that evening as both a resident and on behalf of other home-owners in Traherne Close.  She stated it was felt by herself and the home owners that the Council appeared to be of the opinion, that, because some of the breaches of the previously granted planning consents had been addressed by amending the current plans, that they were no longer of concern.

She informed the Committee that was certainly not the case, and further stated that deliberate flouting of planning consents could not be ignored.  What had been built,  was what had been originally withdrawn, after the officers were of a mind to refuse it, and not the plan that was granted.  She stated that the applicant had totally ignored the conditions to the previous permission, building anything they wanted and then trying to gain permission retrospectively, which was wrong.  If the planning permission was to be passed, imagine the open-door message it would send out.

She specified other breaches that she felt had not been addressed correctly:-

Parking Item (4.3.14). The matter of parking and the dropped kerb, the Planning document stated that there were two spaces at the existing site.  That was incorrect.  There was only one car parking space outside the Annex.

The garden in front of the host property needed to support the two spaces required.  That was too small.  The proposed driveway plan that had been provided at the request of the Highway Authority would not work.  It would not work even if the front wall was demolished and the tree removed.  The removal of part of the front wall had not been requested, and with the addition of a dividing wall would create a land-locked front garden.

The parking was a condition of the original  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Ground floor carport infill extension to create double length garage.

RESOLVED:  That the planning application 18/01238/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Area Planning Officer and the revised condition set out below:

Condition 3 amended to read:

1.         On completion of the works hereby permitted, the extended garage shall be kept available for the parking of motor vehicles.

Reason:  To ensure the provision of satisfactory car parking facilities clear of the public highway.

Ground floor carport infill extension to create double length garage.

The Area Planning Officer drew the Members attention to the letter from the occupier of No. 8A the applicant (Mr Collins) in support of the proposals.  The letter had been sent earlier that week to all Members of the Committee.

Mr Collins addressed the concerns of his neighbour and his comments could be summarised as follows:-

·                     The proposals would not impact in the use of No. 8B’s car port.

·                     The design of the proposals would be in keeping with the existing property.

·                     Parking would not be lost – the garage would be used for car parking and storage – the parking arrangement would remain as they were now.

The Area Planning Officer presented in respect of planning application 18/01238/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of detailed plans, drawings and photographs.

The Area Planning Officer asked that the Committee support the officer recommendation as set out.

Mr Gareth Stinton thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 18/01238/FPH.

Mr Stinton informed the Committee that he was the applicant’s neighbour residing at 8A Park Lane and raised the following points of objection to the application:-

·                The existing garage width did not meet minimum requirements, and it was stated on NHDC’s website that in order to count as a parking space for the purpose of approving planning permission, a garage must measure 3 metres wide by 7 metres in length internally.  He stated that his existing garage measured just 2.9 metres in width, and therefore did not count as a valid parking space.  Given that the  properties were mirror images, he would assume that the dimensions were identical.  He further stated that at that time, neither property used their garages for parking as they were not practical.  He understood that the minimum number of car parking spaces per property over two bedrooms in size should be two.  Their properties were new build five bedroom houses, only completed in 2015, and have the absolute minimum number of parking spaces.

·                The proposal would reduce parking by two spaces.  His parking space in the shared car port would become redundant in the event that a dividing wall was built.  It would be simply too narrow to get into his car.  The proposal would have the result of extending 8A’s current garage and would effectively also turn his side into a garage of the same width as his existing one, albeit with no door.  Even with the thinnest of walls, such a garage would not meet the minimum dimensions necessary to count as a space.  In addition, they would also be only 445cm in length, which would be below the minimum requirements.  The result of the proposal would be two five bedroomed homes with just one car parking space each, and surely would never have been approved for planning permission on that basis.  He would not have purchased the property three years ago with only one car parking space, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

RESOLVED:  That the report entitled Planning Appeals be noted.

The Area Planning Officer presented the report entitled Planning Appeals and drew attention to the various appeal decisions, including the Land adjacent to Elm Tree Farm, Hambridge Way, Pirton SG5 3QY.

RESOLVED:  That the report entitled Planning Appeals be noted.