Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors: 

Daniel Allen, Val Bryant, Ian Moody and Mike Hughson.

Having given due notice the following Councillors advised that they would be substituting:

Councillor David Barnard for Councillor Ian Moody;

Councillor Kay Tart for Councillor Mike Hughson.

Audio recording – Session 1 – 1 min 19 secs

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors: 

Daniel Allen, Val Bryant, Ian Moody and Mike Hughson.

Having given due notice the following Councillors advised that they would be substituting:

Councillor David Barnard for Councillor Ian Moody;

Councillor Kay Tart for Councillor Mike Hughson.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on the 18 July 2019.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 18 July 2019 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chairman.

Audio recording – Session 1 – 1 min 47 secs

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 18 July 2019 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.

Audio recording – Session 1 – 2 mins 10 secs

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, wishing 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 advised that, in accordance with Council policy this meeting is being audio recorded. Members of the public and the press may use their devices to film/photograph, or do a sound recording of the meeting, but should not disturb the meeting.

(2)        Please could Members, officers and public speakers announce their names each time they speak and speak directly into the microphones to assist members of the public

(3)        To clarify matters for the registered speakers:

Members of the public have 5 minutes for each group of speakers i.e. 5 minutes for objectors and 5 minutes for supporters. This 5 minute time limit also applies to Member Advocates.

The bell will sound after 4½ minutes as a warning and again at 5 minutes, to signify that the speaker must cease.

(5)    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, wishing 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.

Audio recording – Session 1 – 2 mins 15 secs

(1)        The Chairman advised that, in accordance with Council policy this meeting is being audio recorded. Members of the public and the press may use their devices to film/photograph, or do a sound recording of the meeting, but should not disturb the meeting.

(2)        Please could Members, officers and public speakers announce their names each time they speak and speak directly into the microphones to assist members of the public

(3)        To clarify matters for the registered speakers:

Members of the public have 5 minutes for each group of speakers i.e. 5 minutes for objectors and 5 minutes for supporters. This 5 minute time limit also applies to Member Advocates.

The bell will sound after 4½ minutes as a warning and again at 5 minutes, to signify that the speaker must cease.

(5)    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, wishing 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 and presentations from members of the public.

The Chairman confirmed that the 8 registered speakers and two Member Advocates were present.

Audio recording – Session 1 –  4 mins 48 secs

The Chairman confirmed that the 8 registered speakers and two Member Advocates were present.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline application for up to 325 dwellings including single site access and temporary construction access, with all other matters reserved including landscaping (including open space, and pedestrian links), appearance, layout and scale.

Prior to the item being considered, Councillor Tony Hunter declared a declarable

interest in that he had objected to site RY10 in the Local Plan.  He advised that he

would listen to the presentations and address the Committee as a Member Advocate

following which, he would leave the room and take no part in the debate and vote.

RESOLVED:

(1)     That application 17/00110/1 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, the following amended and additional conditions and completion of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement.

Condition 5

That Condition 5 be amended to read:

“Construction of the approved development shall not commence until a Construction

Traffic Management Plan has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Thereafter, the

construction of the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the

approved Plan. The Construction Traffic Management Plan shall include construction

vehicle numbers/routing such as prohibition of construction traffic being routed

through Royston town centre and shall be carried out as approved. The temporary

construction access off of Burloes Lane shall be closed to the satisfaction of the

Highway Authority on completion of construction activity on the site.”

Condition 8

That Condition 8 be amended to read:

“Prior to the determination of a reserved matters application, the applicant shall

undertake an ecological assessment of the development site which utilises the

DEFRA Biodiversity Impact Calculator metric or a similar assessment tool. The

development must demonstrate a positive ecological unit score from the pre

development baseline.

Condition 11

That Condition 11  be amended to read:

“Prior to the commencement of the development the applicant shall submit a

programme for the delivery and adoption (or private management of)  footpaths

around the site, with public access secured in perpetuity including non-car access for

cycles and mobility scooters to the established residential development off of Valley

Rise. This programme will be agreed by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction

with Herts County Council Rights of Way. The agreed programme will be

implemented in accordance with any agreed phasing programme and thereafter

maintained in perpetuity.

Reason: To deliver a sustainable scheme of public rights of way for the incumbent

population and the wider community.”

Condition 17

That a new condition 17  be added to read:

“Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved further details

shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, in consultation

with the highway authority, concerning the provision of an emergency vehicle access

along Burloes Lane following the cessation of its use for construction traffic. The

approved emergency access details shall be implemented prior to first occupation.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.”

(2)     That, should, for any reason, the Section 106 agreement not be completed before the 30th Sept 2019 and the applicant does not agree to an extension of time to allow for this, officers be requested to refuse planning permission under delegated  ...  view the full decision text for item 34.

Audio Recording – Session 1 - 4 mins 56 secs

Prior to the item being considered, Councillor Tony Hunter declared a declarable

interest in that he had objected to site RY10 in the Local Plan.  He advised that he

would listen to the presentations and address the Committee as a Member Advocate

following which, he would leave the room and take no part in the debate and vote.

The Principal Planning Officer (East Team) presented the report in respect of

application 17/00110/1 supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs

and plans.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended that the following amendments be

made to the conditions:

Condition 5

Add the following at the end of condition 5:

“the temporary construction access off of Burloes Lane shall be closed to the

satisfaction of the Highway Authority on completion of construction activity on the

site.”

Condition 8

The words “neutral or to be deleted from the final sentence so that it read:

“The development must demonstrate a positive ecological unit score from the pre

development baseline.

The following Members asked questions of the Principal Planning Officer:

•        Councillor Ian Mantle;

•        Councillor Michael Weeks;

•        Councillor Mike Rice;

•        Councillor Terry Tyler.

In answer to questions, the Principal Planning Officer clarified the following:

•        Bikes and pedestrians would have to use the main access point to the site.

•        Although appearance was not a consideration at this meeting, It had been included in the Design Statement that any development above 2.5 storeys must be avoided unless it could be adequately justified.

•        The trees that could be seen on the site plan may be retained but this was a matter for the reserved matters stage.

•        In respect of the Section 106 contributions, the youth contribution of £25,478.25 would go towards the Hitchin Young People’s Centre. Although this facility was located in Hitchin, it would provide a service to the Youth of the whole District. 

Councillor Tony Hunter thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the

Committee in objection to application 17/00110/1 as follows:

•        There was only one point of access to the site;

•        Policy stated that any development of more than 300 dwellings had to have two accesses;

•        The traffic along the A505 had no way to turn right into Newmarket Road;

•        County agreed to a safety audit on RY2, which resulted in a roundabout being provided;

•        A great deal of trees and vegetation would be removed to make the sight lines required for the access;

•        Construction traffic would need traffic lights to allow construction vehicles into the site as it was so dangerous;

•        The site needed an emergency vehicle access;

•        Traffic would have to come through Royston Town Centre to access the site.

The following members asked questions of Councillor Tony Hunter:

•        Councillor David Barnard;

•        Councillor Mike Rice;

•        Councillor Sue Ngwala.

In response to questions, Councillor Tony Hunter advised:

•        If there was to be one access to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Approval for the reserved matters, (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for 279 dwellings and associated works, (permission in outline granted under 16/00378/1).

RESOLVED:

(1)     That application 19/00386/RM  be DEFERRED for the following reasons:

•        The inclusion of an electric vehicle charging condition

•        Exploration of access through to the Ivy Farm phase 2 (Kier scheme) behind the school site

•        Re design of the 3 storey block at the McDonalds end of the site

•        Resolution of highway concerns regarding the layout

(2)     That, in the event that the applicant decline the invitation to revisit the design of the three storey block or would nor extend the time limit in order for the above issues to be explored, prior to reporting back to the Committee at the earliest available opportunity, officers be authorised to refuse planning permission, under delegated authority.

There was a 5 minute comfort break at 22:17.

Audio recording – Session 2 – 0.00 secs

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the following amendments to the report were required:

•        Paragraph 3.2 – Delete “The Parish Council understand the Natural England will also oppose this development along with the Conservators”

•        Paragraph 4.3.16 – the first sentence should read: “Other than the traditional two storey houses, this scheme specifies three 3 storey apartment block at the western end of the site near the McDonalds restaurant.”

•        Paragraph 4.4.1 - Insert “as well as a site for a” before ‘new first school’ in first sentence.

The Principal Planning Officer (East Team) presented the report in respect of

application 19/00386/RM supported by a visual presentation consisting of

photographs and plans.

Mr Wallace Young, DCa architects, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to

address the Committee in support of application19/00386/RM as follows:

•        This development provided 98 affordable homes and 108 private homes for the local area;

•        There was a detailed landscape scheme that included open spaces and pedestrian routes for dog walking and cycling;

•        Access points to the school site had been considered.

The following Members asked questions of Mr Young’s presentation:

•        Councillor David Levett;

•        Councillor Mike Rice;

•        Councillor Michael Weeks;

•        Councillor Ruth Brown;

•        Councillor Kay Tart.

In response to questions, Mr Young advised:

•        At present, there was not a registered social housing landlord.

•        Most of the houses were set back from the railway line.

•        Fencing was to be put in place in order to prevent access to the balancing ponds and railway line.

•        Access to other developments was not confirmed.

•        Foul water details had been submitted with the application;

•        There would not be access directly into the next development site.

.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that:

•        A condition regarding the foul water drainage had been imposed on the outline permission that a foul water scheme was to be submitted, which had not yet been discharged;

•        The scheme could only proceed with the agreement of Anglian Water.

The following Members took part in the debate:

•        Councillor Mike Rice;

•        Councillor David Levett;

•        Councillor Ruth Brown;

•        Councillor Terry Tyler;

•        Councillor Michael Weeks;

•        Councillor Tony Hunter.

Members raised the following points during the debate:

•        The report contained no detail about electric vehicle charging points;

•        The design of the large building was not in keeping with the local area, particularly as they would form the gateway to Royston and opposite the Heath;

•        There was concern that the social housing would not be spread throughout the development, but be concentrated in one area;

•        There was no access to the Kier Home Development for pedestrians and cycles;

•        Upkeep and maintenance of the play area was to be done by someone other than NHDC;

•        The proposed building was an eye sore;

•        The report did not contain any details about the prospect of the speed limit being decreased.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

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

RESOLVED: that application 18/01814/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the

reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – Session 3 - 0.00 secs

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the following amendment to the report

was required:

•        Paragraph 4.3.59 of the report in the second last line of the paragraph. The sentence should read:

‘the harmful effects of the development by far outweigh the limited benefit of

delivering new homes etc (removing the words ‘are far outweighed by’)

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application

18/01814/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and

plans.

Councillor David Barnard, Member Advocate, thanked the Chairman for the

opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 18/01814/FP   as

follows:

•        The Parish Council and village community were in support of this application;

•        The site was not green belt;

•        The scheme offered small properties, which responded to the need for smaller, more affordable homes;

•        The Paddocks development was granted planning permission last year by NHDC and was located towards the right of this site.

•        There was an acceptable entrance to the site;

•        There were acceptable footpaths into the village;

•        Luton Airport estimated that there would be 32 million passengers per year over the next few years. However, there were many reasons as to why this may not happen;

•        It was a planning gain.

Mr Ed Norris, DLP Planning and Mr Tom Brindley, Kings Walden Parish Council,

thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of

application18/01814/FP.

Mr Norris informed Members that:

•        This was a previously developed brownfield site;

•        The scheme was revised following a refusal in 2018;

•        The applicant had sought to address the concerns previously made;

•        There had been a reduction in the number of dwellings;

•        An enhancement of the design was made;

•        There were changes made to the access to the development, including the implementation of a footpath into the village;

•        The site was currently vacant, in a dilapidated state and detracted from the appearance of the local area;

•        The development proposal provided a lesser footprint than the existing buildings;

•        Noise levels had been assessed and complied with the relevant British Standard for Noise.

Mr Brindley advised that:

•        He was Clerk to Kings Walden Parish Council;

•        The site was crying out for redevelopment;

•        Local residents believed that the site should be developed for housing;

•        The current site was an eyesore and dangerous;

•        The Local Plan allowed for windfall developments;

•        The site was previously developed land.

Councillor Sue Ngwala asked for clarification regarding Green Belt legislation.

Mr Norris referred to National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 135G and

advised that the Green Belt was not at risk of harm and this was an opportunity to

redevelop the land for much needed housing.

The Principal Planning Officer clarified that he agreed that this was previously

developed land, however the number and height of the proposed dwellings would

cause harm to the Green Belt. There was an allowance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

First floor side extension, (as amended by drawing no. HM-18507-04 Rev A).

RESOLVED: That application 18/02684/FPH be GRANTED planning permission

subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report of the Development and

Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – Session 3 - 53 mins

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the following amendment to the report was required:

•        Paragraph 4.3.7

The word “not” should be inserted between ‘do’ and ‘consider’ so that the sentence

reads:

‘Given the relatively modest height of the first floor element, the distance to the

boundary and orientation of the site I do not consider that the proposed extension

would cause a material loss of daylight ….etc.  

The Principal Planning Officer (West Team) presented the report in respect of

application 18/02684/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of

photographs and plans.

Mrs Victoria Roberts, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the

Committee in objection to application 18/02684/FPH as follows:

•        She was speaking on behalf of numbers 1 and  2 Standhill Close and number 3 Taylors Hill;

•        The application was disproportionate and overbearing;

•        Due to the topography, the extension would dominate the views from other properties;

•        Number 2 Standhill Close would suffer a significant loss of privacy;

•        The Applicant had suggested privacy piers, but this would increase the mass of the development;

•        The application should be considered on its own merit and not as an amended one;

•        The permission granted 20 years ago for an extension was before 1 and 2 Standhill were built.

Councillor Sue Ngwala sought clarification from the Principal Planning Officer

regarding the location of the extension and its impact.

Mr Grant and Mrs Liz Bannister, Applicants, thanked the Chairman for the

opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 18/02684/FPH as

follows:

•        In 1988,  planning application was approved for an expansion to the house;

•        This time, the initial application was refused in December 2018;

•        The size of the extension and the roof height were reduced;

•        Boundary requirements were met and privacy piers introduced;

•        The materials will be much the same as the house;

•        Other houses had been extended in much the same way

The following Members asked questions:

•        Councillor Kay Tart;

•        David Barnard.

Mr and Mrs Bannister advised:

•        That privacy piers reduced the views into the property;

•        That there were no windows to the side of the extension.

It was moved by Councillor David Levett, seconded by Councillor Tony Hunter and:

RESOLVED: That application 18/02684/FPH be GRANTED planning permission

subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report of the Development and

Conservation Manager.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Single storey rear extension. Insertion of three front velux windows and rear dormer window to facilitate loft conversion. Mono-pitch roof to front elevation and insertion of ground floor window following removal of existing garage door to facilitate garage, conversion to form bedroom.

RESOLVED: That application 19/01059/FPH  be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording –  Session 3 - 1hr 13mins, 50 secs

The Principal Planning Officer (East Team) presented the report in respect of application 19/01059/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the following amendment to the report was required:

The reason for referral to Committee should be amended to read:

“The applicant is the spouse of a North Hertfordshire District Council Councillor in Hitchin. Therefore, due to 8.4.5 part (g) of the Council’s Constitution, the application has to be presented to Planning Committee for determination. “

It was moved by Councillor Tony Hunter, seconded by Councillor Morgan Derbyshire and:

RESOLVED: That application 19/01059/FPH  be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

The Principal Planning Officer (West Team) updated Members regarding Planning

Appeals as follows:

•        The Planning Appeal for 18/01916/OP was dismissed on the 17 July 2019;

•        The Council won the Planning Appeal regarding 68 Linden Road, Baldock; and

•        The hearing regarding the Appeal for LS1 would commence on 15 October 2019.

RESOLVED:  That the report entitled Planning Appeals be noted.

Audio recording – Session 3 - 1hr 16mins, 5 secs

The Principal Planning Officer (West Team) updated Members regarding Planning

Appeals as follows:

•        The Planning Appeal for 18/01916/OP was dismissed on the 17 July 2019;

•        The Council won the Planning Appeal regarding 68 Linden Road, Baldock; and

•        The hearing regarding the Appeal for LS1 would commence on 15 October 2019.

RESOLVED:  That the report entitled Planning Appeals be noted.