Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

The Committee, Member and Scrutiny Manager undertook a roll call to ensure that all Members and Officers could hear and be heard and gave advice regarding the following:

·                Live Streaming;

·                Noise Interference;

·                Rules of Debate;

·                Voting;

The Vice-Chair, Councillor Daniel Allen started the meeting proper.

Audio recording – 4 seconds

The Vice-Chair welcomed everyone to this virtual meeting of the Planning Control Committee 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 Manager undertook a roll call of Members and Officers to ensure that they could hear and be heard and gave the following advice.

The meeting was being streamed live on the Council’s You Tube channel and also recorded via Zoom. 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 later date.

Please stay in view of the camera at all times.

If for any reason the meeting was not quorate an Officer would notify attendees by interjecting the meeting. The meeting would adjourn immediately. Once the meeting was quorate the meeting would resume.  If connection could not be restored within a reasonable period, then the remaining business would be considered at a later date.

If a remote Member lost 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 are entitled to vote.

Mobile phones and other noise emitting devices should be muted and the mute button on tablets and computers should be muted when not speaking.

When requested to vote, voting would be via the Green tick for “Yes”, Red Cross for “No” and Blue Raise Hand for “abstain” functions.

The Vice-Chair, Councillor Daniel Allen, started the meeting proper.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ruth Brown (Chair), Val Bryant and Sean Prendergast.

Having given due notice, Councillor Ian Mantle advised that he would be substituting for Councillor Val Bryant.

Audio recording – 5 minutes 8 seconds

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ruth Brown (Chair), Val Bryant and Sean Prendergast.

Having given due notice, Councillor Ian Mantle advised that he would be substituting for Councillor Val Bryant.

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 – 5 minutes 20 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 Vice-Chair advised that, in accordance with Council policy, this meeting was being audio recorded as well as filmed. The audio recordings would be available to view on Mod.gov and the film recording via the NHDC YouTube channel.

(2)       Members were reminded to make declarations of interest before an item, the detailed reminder about this and speaking rights was set out under Chair’s Announcements on the agenda.

(3)       To clarify matters for the registered speakers the Vice-Chair advised that Members of the public had 5 minutes for each group of speakers i.e. 5 minutes for objectors and 5 minutes for supporters. This 5 minute time limit also applied to Member Advocates.

A warning would given at 4 1/2 minutes and speakers would be asked to cease at 5 minutes.

Audio recording – 5 minutes 51 seconds

(1)       The Vice-Chair advised that, in accordance with Council policy, this meeting was being audio recorded as well as filmed. The audio recordings would be available to view on Mod.gov and the film recording via the NHDC YouTube channel.

(2)       Members were reminded to make declarations of interest before an item, the detailed reminder about this and speaking rights was set out under Chair’s Announcements on the agenda.

(3)       To clarify matters for the registered speakers the Chair advised that Members of the public had 5 minutes for each group of speakers i.e. 5 minutes for objectors and 5 minutes for supporters. This 5 minute time limit also applied to Member Advocates.

A warning would be given at 4 1/2 minutes and speakers would be asked to cease at 5 minutes.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Vice-Chair confirmed that the registered speakers and Members Advocates were in attendance.

Audio recording – 6 minutes 56 seconds

The Vice-Chair confirmed that the registered speakers and Members Advocates were in attendance.

RESOLVED:

(1)       That application 20/00507/FP be DEFERRED to enable the following to be undertaken:

1)      Request that the applicant respond to HCC highways comments and / or request officers to organise a meeting with them to see if the Highways issues can be resolved;

2)      The applicant to be requested to provide a copy of the Environment Agency water extraction licence;

3)      Officers be requested to contact Herts Ecology to check whether they have any comments or advice on water extraction and the impact on ecology in that location from the wider development;

4)      Request that the applicant confirm the method used to transport water from Graffam Water to the site;

5)      Officers be requested to provide a legal view as to whether water extraction is a valid material planning consideration.

(2)       That the Development and Conservation Manager be requested to provide the Planning Control Committee with a report regarding all of the matters in (1) above once these matters are finalised.

Audio recording – 7 minutes 5 seconds

The Planning advised that Highways maintained an objection, therefore the recommendations contained in the report should be amended to read:

“That subject to any objections by Highways being resolved and any additional highways conditions being added, that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.”

He further advised that the Environment Agency had confirmed that a water extraction licence was already held therefore no additional licence was required. Therefore water extraction was not a material consideration in this case as it is an issue for the Environment Agency rather than the Local Planning Authority.

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00507/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

Ms Diane Burleigh thanked the Vice-Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/00507/FP and gave a verbal presentation including:

·                She was speaking in a personal capacity;

·                Pirton Parish Council had raised concerns regarding the impact of the development;

·                They had particular concern regarding the impact of the proposed water extraction springhead and the river;

·                There was no assessment of the impact on the springhead and the Nature Reserve or Wildlife Area;

·                There was a water extraction licence, but it had not been used for many years;

·                The comments regarding extraction were therefore premature as the effect of extraction of the Nature Reserve was unknown;

·                HMWT were extremely concerned about the impact of water extraction on the nature reserve and this issue was not addressed in the ecological assessment;

·                This was a serious omission as the balancing act Members were required to undertake could not be undertaken without this information;

·                Chalk Rivers were rare, the River Oughton was one of these and they hosted special types of flora and fauna

·                Oughtonhead Common was a Local Nature Reserve which was owned and managed by NHDC

·                It hosted more than 200 different types of plants, many species of birds, butterflies, dragonflies, moths, insects, amphibians and mammals;

·                Without this information it was impossible for the LPA to assess whether significant impacts would occur and if these could be compensated;

·                She urged Members to refuse the application.

The following Members asked questions of Mrs Burleigh:

·                Councillor Tom Tyson;

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala.

In response to questions Mrs Burleigh advised:

·                That she was not aware of the motion passed by Council regarding the perilous nature of chalk streams;

·                There was no information provided regarding the amount of water to be extracted or the impact that would have.

The Vice-Chair thanked Mrs Burleigh for her presentation.

Councillors Sam North and Claire Strong thanked the Vice-Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee as Member Advocates in objection to application 20/00507/FP.

Councillor Sam North gave a verbal presentation including:

·                There were fewer than 200 chalk streams in the world;

·                Percent of these were in Hertfordshire;

·                Many species lived solely on these chalk streams;

·                Organisations had been warning of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Reserved matters for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale - Development of 30 residential dwellings with associated parking, open space, landscaping, SuDS and other associated development. (Amended plans received 13/07/20 and 11/08/20).

RESOLVED: That in respect of application 20/01096/RM, the reserved matters details be GRANTED subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 55 minutes 55 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00507/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions and took part in the debate:

·                Councillor David Levett;

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala;

·                Councillor Mike Rice.

Councillor David Levett proposed. Councillor Sue Ngwala seconded and it was:

RESOLVED: That in respect of application 20/01096/RM, the reserved matters details be GRANTED subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Prior to consideration of the application Councillor Daniel Allen advised that he had been taught by Mr Sheiff, one of the public speakers. However this would not have any bearing on his decision and he would therefore take part in both the debate and vote.

RESOLVED: That application 20/00547/FP be REFUSED planning permissions for the reasons below:

The proposal would be likely to cause harm to the living conditions of nearby residential  dwellings in general, and, in particular to the first floor flats above 1-3 The Mead, where their external access steps and  first floor habitable room windows  to the existing side elevation are in close proximity  to the proposed A5 uses side access door and to the proposed extraction flue.  The harm identified would result  from  unacceptable levels of noise/disturbance and odours in this  locality associated with the A5 use.   As a result the application is considered to fail to comply with Policies 8 and 57 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan no.2 with Alterations 1996, Policies D1 and D3 of the North Hertfordshire District Proposed Submission Local Plan 2011-2031 and the provisions of the NPPF, particularly Sections 8 (Paragraph 91), 12 (Paragraphs 127 & 130),  and 15 (Paragraph 180).

NB: The Committee took a comfort break at 21.16

The meeting resumed at 21.28 at which time the Committee, Member and Scrutiny Manager undertook a roll call.

Audio Recording – 1 hour 5 minutes 57 seconds

Prior to consideration of the application Councillor Daniel Allen advised that he had been taught by Mr Shieff, one of the public speakers. However this would not have any bearing on his decision and he would therefore take part in both the debate and vote.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00507/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

She advised that further representations had been sent to Members by email.

Mr Jim Shieff and Mr Mark Robertson thanked the Vice-Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/00547/FP

Mr Shieff gave a verbal presentation including:

·                Both he and Mr Robertson lived in the building being discussed;

·                There was a lot of local hostility to this application;

·                This application would be life changing for him, he felt threatened;

·                If approved he would feel trapped in his flat;

·                The noise of construction would impact heavily on him;

·                The flue would be attached just inches from his window;

·                This Committee refused an application for a loft conversion based on fire risk, this application was definitely a fire risk;

·                He had a right to enjoy peaceful residence and that is what he was demanding.

Mr Robertson gave a verbal presentation including:

·                There was already prolific anti-social behaviour and drug use and this development would make things worse;

·                The yard of the shop was a pit;

·                It would be challenging to obtain a mortgage on the flats above if the development were approved;

·                The already bad parking situation would deteriorate;

·                The Mead was a poor area where obesity was already an issue;

·                There was a school nearby.

The following Members asked questions of Mr Shieff and Mr Robertson:

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala;

·                Councillor David Levett.

In response to questions Mr Shieff advised:

·                That the proposed Flue would be secured to his wall inches from his sitting room window;

·                The only access to the flats above were via the stairs by the proposed side door.

The Vice-Chair thanked Mr Shieff and Mr Robertson for their presentation.

Councillor Ian Albert thanked the Vice-Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee as a Member Advocate in objection to application 20/00547/FP and gave a verbal presentation including:

·                No explanation had been given as to how this development would compliment the function and character of the area;

·                There were a lot of objections to this application;

·                The addition of a takeaway would cause a blight on the area;

·                The nearness of the flue to the upstairs window would make the entrance ugly, would likely send noise and vibrations into Mr Shieff’s flat and would make opening his window problematic;

·                This would have an impact on the clothes drying area for the flats above;

·                The area had already been the target of graffiti, rubbish and vandalism and this would likely increase;

·                There was a history of smoking drugs and smashing of bottles;

·                It was likely that customers would sit  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

RESOLVED: That application 20/01564/FP be DEFERRED for the following reasons:

Members deferred the decision but were minded to grant planning permission. They are looking for a package of measures to seek compliance with Policy HD5 of the Preston Neighbourhood Plan, many of which are already in the scheme, including EV charging points. There is discussion in the policy of water conservation, biodiversity and landscaping. Officers will work with the applicant to seek this submission and report back to Members with a report focussed only on these matters.

Audio recording – 1 hour 55 minutes 36 seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 20/01564/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

Mrs Diane Burleigh and Mr Robert Dedman thanked the Vice-Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/0154/FP.

Mrs Burliegh gave a verbal presentation including:

·                Although not a resident of Preston, she had a close association as a shareholder of the Red Lion Pub;

·                She was speaking with the agreement of Preston Parish Council;

·                She felt that this application did not comply with Preston’s Neighbourhood Plan, in particular Policy HD3, House Types, which the officer acknowledged in his report;

·                The application was for 4 and 5 bedroomed houses in a village where the average house price was in excess of £1 Million;

·                HD3 identified the need for houses suitable for families, local people and first time buyers rather than large houses;

·                There was also a need for bungalows for those downsizing;

·                This application failed to comply with HD4 which required development to take into account local housing need;

·                Although Preston Council acknowledge the need for low density housing, this was too low at 3 houses per hectare;

·                Two or three more houses would still enable appropriate landscaping and wildlife buffer zones whilst protecting the amenity of neighbouring properties;

·                It was concerning that the Preston Neighbourhood Plan, made in April 2020, had not been taken into account;

·                Paragraph 8.5 of the emerging Local Plan stated that applicants should be mindful of emerging and adopted neighbourhood plans;

·                The application should be refused as it did not meet housing needs or requirements of ecology or biodiversity.

Mr Dedman gave a verbal presentation including:

·                He lived in the property adjacent to the development and would therefore be the most affected;

·                The application area was in the green belt and in a conservation area;

·                There was a wealth of wildlife in the field including protected species.

The following Members asked questions:

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala.

In response to questions Mr Dedman advised:

·                There would be a roadway close to the living room and bedroom windows;

·                This meant they would see all of the vehicle on the property;

·                Only one small hedge was planned in between the development and their house.

The Vice-Chair thanked Mrs Burleigh and Mr Dedman for their presentations.

Mr Colin Eades thanked the Vice-Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 20/01564/FP and gave a verbal presentation including:

·                The land was not in the green belt;

·                The land has been in the ownership o the applicant for twenty years

·                The number of houses could not be a factor when judging an application;

·                Highways, ecology waste etc either have no objection or objections can be overcome by conditions;

·                Is was normal for an application to have a few objections;

·                Preston did not lie within the green belt;

·                The site came within settlement limits;

·                The Councils lacked a 5 year housing supply and this development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

RESOLVED: That application 20/01852/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 2 hours 31 minutes 28 seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 20/01852/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

He advised that both neighbour objections had now been withdrawn.

Councillor Morgan Derbyshire proposed, Councillor Ian Moody seconded and it was:

RESOLVED: That application 20/01852/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

RESOLVED: That the report entitled Planning Appeals be noted.

Audio recording – 2 hours 34 minutes 30 seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager reminded Members that the final PAS Training for Members would be held on 28 October 2020.

RESOLVED: That the report entitled Planning Appeals be noted.