Agenda, decisions and minutes

Members are requested to ensure that they are familiar with the attached summary of the Remote/Partly Remote Meetings Protocol. The full Remote/Partly Remote Meetings Protocol has been published and is available here: https://www.north-herts.gov.uk/home/council-and-democracy/council-and-committee-meetings.

The 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 to and view proceedings.

The Chair invited the Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer to explain how proceedings would work and to confirm that Members and Officers were in attendance.

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

The meeting was being streamed live onto YouTube and recorded via Zoom.

Extracts from the Remote/Partly Remote Meetings Protocol were included with the agenda and the full version was available on the Council’s website which included information regarding:

·                Live Streaming;

·                Noise Interference;

·                Rules of Debate;

·                Part 2 Items.

Members were requested to ensure that they were familiar with the Protocol.

The Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer advised Members that due to a change to the remote meeting software votes at this meeting would be conducted by roll-call.

The Chair of the Planning Control Committee, Councillor Ruth Brown started the meeting proper.

The 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 to and view proceedings.

The Chair invited the Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer to explain how proceedings would work and to confirm that Members and Officers were in attendance.

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

The meeting was being streamed live onto YouTube and recorded via Zoom.

Extracts from the Remote/Partly Remote Meetings Protocol were included with the agenda and the full version was available on the Council’s website which included information regarding:

·                Live Streaming;

·                Noise Interference;

·                Rules of Debate;

·                Part 2 Items.

Members were requested to ensure that they were familiar with the Protocol.

The Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer advised Members that due to a change to the remote meeting software votes at this meeting would be conducted by roll-call.

The Chair of the Planning Control Committee, Councillor Ruth Brown started the meeting proper.

Members are required to notify any substitutions by midday on the day of the meeting.

Late substitutions will not be accepted and Members attending as a substitute without having given the due notice will not be able to take part in the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Sean Prendergast.

Audio recording – 3 minutes 30 seconds.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Sean Prendergast.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on: 24 November, 17 December 2020.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meetings of the Committee held on 24 November 2020 and 17 December 2020 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and the Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer be authorised to apply the Chair’s digital signature.      

Audio Recording – 3 minutes 39 seconds.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meetings of the Committee held on 24 November 2020 and 17 December 2020 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and the Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer be authorised to apply the Chair’s digital signature.

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 – 4 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 Chair welcomed those present at the meeting, especially those who had attended to give a presentation;

(2)       The Chair advised that, in accordance with Council Policy, the meeting would be audio recorded;

(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)       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 ½ minutes and speakers would be asked to cease at 5 minutes.

(5)       The Chair advised that the Committee would adjourn for a comfort break around 9PM.

Audio recording – 4 minutes 29 seconds.

(1)       The Chair welcomed those present at the meeting, especially those who had attended to give a presentation;

(2)       The Chair advised that, in accordance with Council Policy, the meeting would be audio recorded;

(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)       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 ½ minutes and speakers would be asked to cease at 5 minutes.

(5)       The Chair advised that the Committee would adjourn for a comfort break around 9PM.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that all registered speakers and Member Advocates were in attendance.

Audio recording – 5 minutes 59 seconds.

The Chair confirmed that all registered speakers and Member Advocates were in attendance.

RESOLVED: That application 20/02631/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following amended conditions and additional informative:

Condition 4 be amended to read:

“4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a landscaping plan is to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and only the approved details must be implemented on site.  The landscaping plan shall include the following:

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 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 including boundary treatments with the neighbouring Claypit Cottages as well as within the development; and

d)         details of any earthworks proposed.

e)         details of additional screening to the western boundary of the site, to ensure privacy between the plot and neighbouring properties.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the site.”

Condition 6 be amended to read:

“6. No development shall take until details of the proposed finished floor levels; ridge and eaves heights of the building hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted levels details shall be measured against a fixed datum and shall show the existing and finished ground levels surrounding the dwelling hereby approved. The ground level immediately surrounding the proposed dwelling, the finished floor level and ridge height will match those shown on drawings 19.20:03J and 19.20:05D.  The development shall be carried out as approved.”

The following Informative be included:

“It is recommended that approval is sought from the relevant Water and Sewerage Company (WaSC) for the intended discharge of surface water into the foul sewer which crosses the site.”

Audio Recording – 6 minutes 10 seconds.

Erection of one detached 3- bedroom dwelling house, including use of existing garage and existing vehicular access and provision of 2 further on-site car parking spaces (as amended by drawings received 16th and 18th December 2020).

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/02631/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs and provided the following updates:

·                Since publication of the report three further consultation responses from the neighbour at 3 & 4 Claypit Cottages had been received which had been circulated to Members;

·                The officer summarised the issues raised in these responses including the issues of land levels, surface water runoff and potential overlooking by users of the side access door of the existing garage.

·                Condition 4 requiring a landscaping plan to be submitted and approved prior to commencement was to be amended to include details of additional screening to provide privacy;

·                Condition 6 requiring survey plans detailing ground levels was to be amended to require the development to match levels as stated in the plans currently before the Committee;

·                The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) had raised no objections and was satisfied with the drainage conditions but an informative was to be added to the report advising the applicant to seek approval from the relevant Water and Sewerage Company.

The Chair invited Alan Jones to address the Committee.

Alan Jones thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak in objection to the application and addressed the Committee including:

·                The committee should be bound by the decision of the planning inspector;

·                Policy 57 should continue to apply;

·                This site had an extensive and complex history with the planning authority in part due to officers’ failure to prevent the illegal construction of a property on the site which had to be demolished;

·                The first development permitted on this site was unviable due to the location of a drain and the applicant in that case went on to construct in an alternative but not permitted location;

·                Mr Jones had instigated proceedings for judicial review of the Council’s actions relating to the unlawful construction and these proceedings were still outstanding;

·                A senior planning inspector had ordered the unlawful property demolished and stated that the application approved in 2012 would be an acceptable fallback position for all parties;

·                The present application did not overcome the reasons for demolition outlined in the decision of the inspector;

·                The binding decision of the inspector stated that the operative issue was the distance between the proposed building and the boundary with Mr Jones’ neighbouring property, not the distance between the proposed building and his buildings;

·                Officers must not attempt to dilute the binding decision and must compare the application at hand with the approval in 2012 and examine any policy which might cause them to deviate from the development approved by the inspector;

·                References in the officer’s report to Emerging Policy D3 were not relevant and policy 57 deemed relevant by the inspector had not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

RESOLVED: That application 20/00891/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons below:

The application site is within an area designated in the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan no.2 with Alterations as Green Belt, within which there is a presumption against inappropriate development, such as that proposed, unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated.  In the view of the Local Planning Authority the proposal is not supported by such circumstances.  Moreover, it would harm the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy which seeks to maintain the openness of the area.  As such, the proposal would not accord with the provisions of Policy 2 of the District Local Plan no.2 with Alterations 1996 or with the provisions of section 13 of the NPPF.

Audio Recording – 53 minutes 53 seconds.

Erection of five dwelling houses in association with a new access spur from the Lodge Court, on-site parking, landscaping (inclusive of new trees), formation of a pedestrian footpath and designated communal open space. (Amended plans received 22/06/20 and 07/12/20).

The Acting Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00891/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans along with the following updates to the report:

·                An additional condition was to be added to the report as follows:

“Condition 18:

No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 1 in 100 year plus climate change critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

A full detailed drainage design and surface water drainage assessment should include:

1.         Full detailed drainage plan including location of all the drainage features.

2.         Where infiltration is proposed, evidence of ground conditions / underlying geology and permeability including BRE Digest 365 compliant infiltration tests.

3.         Evidence that if discharge to the local sewer network is proposed, confirmation from the relevant water company that they have the capacity to take the proposed volumes and run-off rates is provided.

4.         Discharge from the site should be at an agreed rate with the water company. This should be at Greenfield run-off rate; justification will be needed if a different rate is to be used.

5.         Detailed engineered drawings of the proposed SuDS features including their, location, size, volume, depth and any inlet and outlet features including any connecting pipe runs and all corresponding calculations/modelling to ensure the scheme caters for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year + 40% allowance climate change event.

6.         Demonstrate appropriate SuDS management and treatment and inclusion of above ground features such as permeable paving.

7.         Final detailed management plan to include arrangements for adoption and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

Reason

To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site and To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants.”

·                A letter of objection had been submitted by Ickleford Parish Council and circulated to all members of the Committee prior to the meeting;

·                The letter of objection did not raise any new issues additional to those brought during the consultation period and set out at paragraph 2.10 of the report.

The following Members asked questions:

·                Cllr Mike Rice

·                Cllr David Levett

·                Cllr Tom Tyson

In response to questions the Acting Principal Planning Officer advised:

·                The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

RESOLVED: That application 20/01564/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following additional condition:

“Prior to first  occupation of the development hereby permitted, a feasibility study shall be undertaken to fully ascertain the installation of solar panels on the approved dwellings. The study shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the development.  If the feasibility study determines that solar panels are appropriate in certain locations, such panels shall be fitted onto the dwellings prior to their occupation and thereafter retained and maintained for their intended purpose.

Reason: In the interests of reducing potential carbon emissions and mitigating climate change.”

Audio Recording – 1 hour 53 minutes and 8 seconds.

Erection of one detached 4-bed and two detached 5-bed dwellings including garages and creation of vehicular access off Back Lane (as amended by plan received 19.11.2020).

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/01564/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Chair invited Margaret Trinder to address the Committee.

Margaret Trinder thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

·                Ms Trinder was Chair of Preston Parish Council and was speaking in objection to this application;

·                The Preston Neighbourhood Plan (PNP) was formally made on 3 April 2020 and forms part of the statutory development plan for North Herts; this was the first application assessed against the PNP;

·                The report concerning this item did not appear to consider the policies of the PNP and in this applications previous appearance before the Committee it failed to meet policies HD3 and HD4 but was nevertheless recommended for approval;

·                The policies of the PNP were described at that meeting as ‘aims,’ or ‘objectives,’ where they should have been regarded as policies as required by law;

·                The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was clear that every development site should be utilised to maximise the number of dwellings to meet local needs while confirming with the local character of a site;

·                This application should be refused because it fails to do this; Paragraphs 77, 117, 123, 127 are particularly relevant; P117 emphasises the need for decision makers to make the best maximum use of development sites;

·                Paragraph 77 advises that in rural areas planning policies and decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support developments that support local needs;

·                The revised site plan was welcome but did not clearly demonstrate how landscaping and biodiversity needs were addressed;

·                The Parish Council was of the view that the landscape and ecological management plan should have been part of the planning application to allow for scrutiny of the plans;

·                The changes to the energy statement were welcome but it was disappointing to discover that the report included a public transport plan which appeared to have been cut and pasted from another application.

·                The application should be refused because it is contrary to policies HD3 and HD4, the NPPF paragraphs mentioned, the energy statement was unreliable, and because there had been no pre-decision ecological survey, and it did not meet the needs of residents of Preston.

The Chair thanked Margaret Trinder for her presentation.

In response to the issues raised the Senior Planning Officer advised:

·                The focus of the decision tonight should be on whether the revised application conforms with the requirements of policy HD5 as this was the reason for deferral given by the previous Committee;

·                The landscape and ecological management plan was a recommendation of Hertfordshire Ecology and it was typical for that information to be required by planning condition rather than form part of an application;

·                The report documents did relate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

RESOLVED: That application 20/00598/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reason:

“The proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and causes harm to the openness of the Green Belt. In addition to the harm by reason of inappropriateness, other harm is identified in relation to one of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and the impact on the character and appearance of the area. The harm by reason of inappropriateness, and the other harm identified, is not clearly outweighed by other material planning considerations such as to constitute the very special circumstances necessary to permit inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  The proposal does not comply with Policies 2 and 3 of the 1996 Adopted Local Plan; Policies SP1, SP2, SP5 and D1 of the Emerging Local Plan; and Sections 12 and 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Audio Recording – 2 hours 17 minutes 41 seconds.

Erection of one detached 4-bed and two detached 5-bed dwellings including garages and creation of vehicular access off Back Lane (as amended by plan received 19.11.2020).

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00598/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs along with the following updates to the report:

·                An extension of time had been agreed with the applicant to 15 February

·                A neighbour objection from N.85 Codicote Road had been received stating that the road layout drawing 019/942/02F showed works being undertaken and a public footpath which were inaccurate; upon review the applicant confirmed that no such works were being undertaken.

The following Members asked questions:

·                Cllr Mike Rice

·                Cllr Val Bryant

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised:

·                It is the view of the planning officers that both Planning Authorities concerned with this application should come to a determination relating to the application as a whole;

·                Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council had already considered the application submitted to them and resolved to refuse planning permission;

·                Welwyn Hatfield were not of the view that the site was previously developed land, believed the development would have a more significant visual impact than the existing properties, and took the view that the development would have a suburbanising impact resulting in a spatial and visual loss of openness encroaching into the countryside;

·                The view taken by NHDC Planning Officers is that the site was on previously developed land on the basis that a certificate of lawfulness had been issued by NHDC and that the land was used for commercial equestrian purposes which is considered previously developed under the NPPF.

·                It was not his view that the dwellings would encroach any further than the existing dwellings or structures.

·                Welwyn Hatfield had a further grounds for refusal on the basis that no Section 106 Agreement had planned.

The Chair advised that it was the role of the Committee to adjudicate on the application before them and that the decision taken by Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council was not a relevant planning consideration.

Councillor Tom Tyson asked for clarification on the legal situation with respect to the duplicate applications.

In response the Development and Conservation manager advised:

·         Where developments straddled planning authority boundaries it was incumbent on applicants to submit duplicate applications to all authorities concerned;

·         Each authority had to make a decision on the merits of the application before them;

·         Paragraph 1.2 of the Report highlights that NHDC had granted a Lawful Development Certificate considering that the use of the buildings was industrial not agricultural and was therefore considered previously developed land;

·         Welwyn Hatfield had started from the premise that the buildings were agricultural rather than industrial;

·         If Members were minded to refuse on the basis that the proposal was inappropriate development in the green belt the existence of the lawful development certificate issued in 2019 would have to be accounted for at appeal;

·         Viability was not a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

RESOLVED: That application 20/01254/FP 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 59 minutes.

Erection of one semi-detached 5-bed dwelling, one semi-detached 4-bed and one detached 4-bed dwelling including garaging and home office outbuilding following demolition of existing buildings, re-location of public footpath (amended plans received 18/11/20)

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/01254/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans as well as the following updates to the report:

·                An extension of time had been agreed to 15 February;

·                Paragraph 4.4.1 should be amended to change “is not however engaged” to “is engaged”;

·                Condition 15 should be amended to remove “such as prohibition of construction traffic being routed through any of the country lanes in the area.”

The following Members asked questions:

·                Cllr Sue Ngwala

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised:

·                There was no Kimpton Parish Neighbourhood Plan and sufficient weight could not be given to the representations of Kimpton Parish Council in order to press for the mix of dwellings they had asked for.

The Chair invited Andy Moffat to address the Committee.

Andy Moffat thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

·                The form of the development had been led by guidance on design from the conservation officer;

·                The applicant owned land in and around Kimpton and was engaged in wider discussions with the Parish Council about the provision of affordable housing;

·                It was the view of the conservation team that a rebuild of the properties on the site was of greater heritage benefit than continued reuse;

·                The number of units had been reduced from 4 to 3 at the request of the conservation officer, with smaller further changes made since;

·                The site was not presently in the green belt;

·                Each comment from local residents and the Parish Council had been responded to in detail;

·                The large number of conditions on approval in the report had been accepted and agreed.

The following Members asked questions:

·                Cllr Mike Rice

In response to questions Andy Moffat advised that the site was not designated as green belt in the Adopted Local Plan but that the designation of the site was due to change in the Emerging Local Plan.

The Chair thanked Andy Moffat for his presentation.

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

·                Cllr David Levett

·                Cllr Daniel Allen

·                Cllr Tony Hunter

Councillor David Levett proposed, Councillor Daniel Allen seconded and it was:

RESOLVED: That application 20/01254/FP 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

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

RESOLVED: That the report entitled Planning Appeals be noted.

REASON FOR DECISION: To keep the Planning Committee apprised of planning appeals lodged and planning appeal decisions.

Audio recording – 3 hours 21 minutes.

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

There were no questions from Members.

RESOLVED: That the report entitled Planning Appeals be noted.

REASON FOR DECISION: To keep the Planning Committee apprised of planning appeals lodged and planning appeal decisions.