Agenda, decisions and minutes

Audio Recording – 0 Seconds

The Chair welcomed everyone to the virtual Planning Control Committee meeting that was being conducted with Members and Officers at various locations, communicating via audio/video and online and advised that there was the opportunity for the public and press to listen and view proceedings.

The Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer gave advice regarding the following:

Attendance

A roll call was undertaken to confirm that the required Members, Officers and Registered Speakers were present and could hear and be heard.

If for any reason the meeting was not quorate an Officer would interject the meeting and the meeting would adjourn immediately. Once the meeting was quorate the meeting would resume.

 If a remote Member were to lose connection the Chair may adjourn the meeting for a short period to enable connection to be re-established.  If the Chair did not adjourn the meeting the Member would be deemed to have left the meeting at the point of failure and be deemed to have returned at the point of re-establishment. Only Members present for the entirety of debate and consideration of an item were entitled to vote.

Live Streaming

The meeting was being streamed live on the Council’s YouTube channel. If live streaming failed the meeting would adjourn. If the live stream could not be restored within a reasonable period then the remaining business would be considered at a time and date fixed by the Chair. If the Chair did not fix a date, the remaining business would be considered at the next ordinary meeting.

If technology failed for a member of the public who had attended to participate and was unable to do so, the Chair may decide to adjourn or proceed to the next item of business to allow for connection to be re-established.  If connection could not be restored within a reasonable period, the Chair could decide to conclude the remaining business.

If a Member or Member of the Public dropped out of the meeting and was unable to connect by video, an email had been sent with instructions on how to join the meeting via telephone. 

Noise Interference

The Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer asked all in attendance to ensure that electronic devices were muted.

Rules of Debate

If a Member wished to speak they should use the raise hand button and this would alert the host that they wished to speak.

Members were reminded that the normal procedure rules in respect of debate and times to speak would apply.

Voting

When requested to vote, Members were informed to vote using the Green tick for ‘Yes’,  Red Cross for ‘No’ and Blue Raise Hand for ‘abstain’.

Details of how Members voted would not be kept or minuted unless a Recorded Vote was requested or an individual requests that their vote be recorded.

The Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer would clearly state the result of the vote and the Chair would proceed to the next agenda item.

The Chair, Councillor Ruth Brown, started the meeting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

There were no apologies for absence.

Audio Recording – 6 Minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Members should notify the Chair of other business which they wish to be discussed at the end of either Part I or Part II 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 Chair will decide whether any item(s) raised will be considered.

There was no other business notified.

Audio Recording – 6 Minutes 6 Seconds

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 Chair 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 Chair welcomed those present at the meeting;

(2)       The Chair advised that, in accordance with Council Policy, the meeting would be audio recorded and live streamed on the Council’s YouTube;

(3)     The Chair drew attention to the item on the agenda front pages regarding Declarations of Interest and 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 Chair clarified matters for the registered speakers and informed members of the public that they 5 minutes for each group of speakers i.e. 5 minutes for objectors and 5 minutes for supporters.

The 5 minute time limit also applied to Member Advocates. The bell would sound after 41/2 minutes as a warning and again at 5 minutes to signify that the speaker must cease.

(5)     The Chair advised that a comfort break would be called after Agenda Items 5 & 6 or at 9:00pm, whichever came first.

Audio Recording – 6 Minutes 11 Seconds

(1)     The Chair welcomed those present at the meeting;

(2)     The Chair advised that, in accordance with Council Policy, the meeting would be audio recorded and live streamed on the Council’s YouTube;

(3)     The Chair drew attention to the item on the agenda front pages regarding Declarations of Interest and 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 Chair clarified matters for the registered speakers and informed members of the public that they 5 minutes for each group of speakers i.e. 5 minutes for objectors and 5 minutes for supporters.

The 5 minute time limit also applied to Member Advocates. The bell would sound after 41/2 minutes as a warning and again at 5 minutes to signify that the speaker must cease.

(5)     The Chair advised that a comfort break would be called after Agenda Items 5 & 6 or at 9:00pm, whichever came first.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the Registered Speakers were present.

Audio Recording – 7 Minutes 30 Seconds

The Chair confirmed that the Registered Speakers were present.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline application for erection of 6 dwellings (all matters except access reserved).

RESOLVED: That application 20/00117/OP be REFUSED planning permission as per the reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio Recording – 7 Minutes 45 Seconds

The Principal Planning Officer advised that there were some corrections to be made to the report, as follows:

·                Paragraph 4.3.9 - delete (‘then s.52’);

·                Paragraph 4.3.43 - penultimate sentence should read ‘on the private car’ not ‘of’;

·                Reason for refusal (RFR) 2. First sentence should read ‘on private transport’ not ‘of’; and

·                RFR 4 - delete final ‘plan’.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00117/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

Mrs Lynne Bogie thanked the Chair the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/00117/OP, including:

·                It was inappropriate development of land in a rural position outside the development limits of Therfield, a site which did not meet the criteria for inclusion as a development site in the Emerging Local Plan;

·                The site was unsuitable in terms of highway and access and failed to promote sustainability;

·                An access for the proposed development immediately next to this existing junction would be highly dangerous;

·                Planning permission had been granted in 1992 to use the site for the open storage of agricultural machinery and as an operating depot for four heavy goods vehicles. This use was ongoing and generated a significant amount of vehicular movements each day;

·                The site was Previously Developed Land and attracted favourable treatment when considering development; and

·                The only significant use of the site, and the only significant traffic movements, would arise out of the unlawful breakers and scrap yard referred to in the officer’s report.

The Chair thanked Mrs Bogie for her presentation.

Mr Michael Calder thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 20/00117/OP, including:

·                Officers agreed that the application was to be determined in accordance of the planning balance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);

·                The difference between the applicant and the Officer was whether the tilted balance applied and the weight of harms and benefits in the planning balance;

·                There were three strands to sustainability: social, economic and environmental;

·                In respect of the social strand, in the light of the shortfall in the Council’s five year land supply and delay in the emerging local plan, the delivery of much needed family housing should be considered;

·                The NPPF supported the provision of developments in rural locations such as Therfield;

·                Housing could enhance local amenities, supporting paragraph 78 in the NPPF, and putting weight on the planning balance;

·                The development of housing would bring economic benefits such as job creation, local labour supply chain and household spending on local services;

·                Changing the land use from commercial to residential would have little impact on the character of the area;

·                There would be four parking spaces per unit, a double garage and visitor parking spaces; and

·                Access to the centre of the village would be via public right of way networks.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to points raised by referring to page 70, Previously Developed Land in the NPPF,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline application for erection of 18 dwellings (appearance and scale reserved).

RESOLVED: That application 20/00118/OP be REFUSED planning permission as per the reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio Recording – 40 Minutes 17 Seconds

The Principal Planning Officer advised that there were some corrections to be made to the report, as follows:

·                Paragraph 4.3.7 - delete (‘then s.52’);

·                Paragraph 4.3.45 - penultimate sentence should read ‘on the private car’ not ‘of’;

·                Paragraph 4.4.1- the citation of 4.3.34 should read 4.3.37;

·                RFR 3 -first sentence should read ‘on private transport’ not ‘of’;

·                RFR 5 - delete final ‘Plan’.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00118/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

Mrs Lynne Bogie thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/00118/OP, including:

·                It was poorly designed, inappropriate development of land in a rural position outside the development limits of Therfield;

·                The proposed development was urban in character, overcrowded, and wholly unsuited to a very visible site in the countryside;

·                The site was unsuitability in terms of highway and access, and failed to promote sustainability, for the reasons identified in the officer’s report;

·                There was likely to be serious traffic from such a major development; and

·                There were concerns about the road safety implications of a new major junction so close to her access lane.

The Chair thanked Mrs Bogie for her presentation.

Mr Michael Calder thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 20/00118/OP, including:

·                There was an absence in the five year land supply and an out-of-date Local Plan;

·                Significant weight should be given to the social, economic and environmental benefits of the development;

·                More housing would meet the needs of the village and local residents;

·                The development would provide much needed family homes;

·                A building was erected in 1972 on the land and therefore this site met the definition of Previously Developed Land; and

·                The benefits of the development outweighed the harm to heritage asset.

The following Members sought clarification of Mr Calder’s presentation:

·                Councillor David Levett.

In response to the Member’s question, Mr Calder advised that the density of the development was greater than the surrounding villages and there were 31 dwellings per hectare.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to points raised as follows:

·                The tilted balance was not engaged; and

·                The definition of Previously Developed Land (PDL) excluded buildings that were in agricultural use. The building erected on the site in 1972 was likely used for agricultural purposes and therefore the site did not qualify for the PDL status.

The following Members took part in the debate:

·                Councillor Daniel Allen; and

·                Councillor Tony Hunter.

Points raised by Members included:

·                The overdevelopment of the area; and

·                The site was 3x more unsuitable than the previously application.

It was proposed by Councillor Allen to refuse the application as per the Officer’s recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Hunter. Upon being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 20/00118/OP be REFUSED planning permission as per the reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

NB: There was a break  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

RESOLVED: That application 20/00908/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio Recording – 1 Hour 7 Minutes 55 Seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 20/00908/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Development and Conservation Manager drew Members’ attention to the Relevant History, as detailed at paragraph 1.0 on page 53 within the report.

Following the summary of the Relevant History, Members sought clarification from the Development and Conservation Manager of matters raised. The Development and Conservation responded accordingly.

Mr Philip Holland thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/00908/FP, including:

·                The noise and volume of traffic that this application would generate. That point was supported by the Planning Inspector, who had refused the original plan for 3 detached dwellings in September 2015; and

·                The noise survey was conducted between Thursday 14 November 2019 and Tuesday 19 November 2019. However, Mr Holland had hired a compactor on Monday 18 November 2019, which was used in the front garden of 94 Green Drift in the morning. He was required to wear ear defenders while using the compactor. The noise levels of traffic recorded at other times appear to be similar to that of the compactor recorded on the Monday morning.

The Chair thanked Mr Holland for his presentation.

Councillor Carol Stanier, Member Advocate, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/00908/FP, including:

·                The proposal involved creating an unacceptable form of backland development which would have identifiable physical relationship with the existing pattern of frontage developments within the area, thereby failing to have adequate regard to the character and context of the surrounding area and detracting from the general character and appearance of this particular part of Royston;

·                The proposal for three dwellings would result in a significant increase in the use of the single access driveway giving rise to a loss of residential amenity to the occupiers of the adjoining dwellings particularly the bungalow at No. 94 Green Drift;

·                The economic and social benefits of the proposal were clearly and demonstrably outweighed by the environmental and social harm. As such, the development failed to accord with policy D3 of the Emerging Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole;

·                Royston Town Council had objected to every iteration of this development as being overdevelopment and not in keeping with the area;

·                Residents on Cedar Close were concerned that as the official address will be on this road, visitors including delivery etc would come to this road and parking in front of the access would reduce their own access to driveways; and

·                This road was a quiet, largely retirement road and increased traffic and parking would be extremely undesirable and alter the character of the road considerably.

The following Members sought clarification of Councillor Stanier’s presentation:

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala; and

·                Councillor David Levett.

In response to questions, Councillor Stanier advised as follows:

·                It was believed that the applicant lived at Number 92; and

·                The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

RESOLVED: That the report entitled Planning Appeals be noted.

Audio Recording – 1 Hour 56 Minutes 19 Seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report entitled Planning Appeals.

RESOLVED: That the report entitled Planning Appeals be noted.

The Development and Conservation Manager provided Members with an update relating to planning training sessions being offered to all Members of the Council by the Planning Advisory Service.

The Planning Lawyer informed Members that dates had been proposed for a virtual Local Plan Examination. Once dates had been confirmed, Members would be informed via the Members Information Service (MIS) in due course.

Audio Recording – 1 Hour 56 Minutes 37 Seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager provided Members with an update relating to planning training sessions being offered to all Members of the Council by the Planning Advisory Service. He advised that training sessions were proposed for early September and October. There would be four sessions, each lasting 2 hours in order to cover all planning related issues. There was also be specific training for the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Control Committee, with the material needing to be discussed with Executive Members first.

The Planning Lawyer informed Members that dates had been proposed for a virtual Local Plan Examination - The dates proposed were weeks commencing 14 September, 21 September and 28 September. Once dates had been confirmed, Members would be informed via the Member’s Information Service (MIS) in due course.

A number of questions were asked of the Development and Conservation Manager in regards to the training. The Development and Conservation Manager advised as follows:

·                All Members would be invited to the training; and

·                The training would not take place on an evening when there was a Committee meeting.