Skip to main content

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: This will be a Virtual Meeting

Contact: Committee Services (01462) 474655  Email: committee.services@north-herts.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

135.

WELCOME AND REMOTE/PARTLY REMOTE MEETINGS PROTOCOL SUMMARY

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.

Decision:

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

Minutes:

Audio Recording – 0 minutes.

 

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

136.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

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.

Decision:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sean Prendergast and Morgan Derbyshire.

 

Having given due notice Councillor Carol Stanier advised she would be substituting for Councillor Sean Prendergast.

 

Having given due notice Councillor Michael Muir advised he would be substituting for Councillor Morgan Derbyshire.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 4 minutes 40 seconds.

 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sean Prendergast and Morgan Derbyshire.

 

Having given due notice Councillor Carol Stanier advised she would be substituting for Councillor Sean Prendergast.

 

Having given due notice Councillor Michael Muir advised he would be substituting for Councillor Morgan Derbyshire.

 

137.

MINUTES - 24 MARCH 2021 pdf icon PDF 437 KB

To take as read and approve as a true record of proceedings the minutes of the meeting on 24 March 2021.

 

Minutes to follow.

Decision:

RESOLVED:

 

(1)       That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 24 March 2021 be approved as a true record of the proceedings;

 

(2)       That the Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer be authorised to apply the Chair’s digital initials and signature to the approved minutes.

Minutes:

Audio Recording – 4 minutes 57 seconds.

 

Councillor Ruth Brown proposed, Councillor Daniel Allen seconded and it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)       That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 24 March 2021 be approved as a true record of the proceedings;

 

(2)       That the Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer be authorised to apply the Chair’s digital initials and signature to the approved minutes.

 

138.

NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS

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.

Decision:

There was no other business notified.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 5 minutes 45 seconds.

 

There was no other business notified.

139.

CHAIR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

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.

Decision:

(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.

 

(5)       The Chair advised that items 10 & 11 and 13 & 14 would be presented together and that the Committee would hear the reports for the paired items back to back  then hear representations from registered speakers as usual.

 

(6)       The Chair advised that Item 14 would be presented before Item 13.

 

(7)       The Chair advised that a comfort break would be taken around 9pm at a suitable break between business.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 5 minutes 46 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.

 

(5)       The Chair advised that items 10 & 11 and 13 & 14 would be presented together and that the Committee would hear the reports for the paired items back to back  then hear representations from registered speakers as usual.

 

(6)       The Chair advised that Item 14 would be presented before Item 13.

 

(7)       The Chair advised that a comfort break would be taken around 9pm at a suitable break between business.

 

140.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

Decision:

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 7 minutes 58 seconds.

 

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

 

 

141.

20/01638/FP LAND TO THE REAR OF Nos 61 AND 61A RADCLIFFE ROAD, HITCHIN, SG5 1QG pdf icon PDF 332 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Conversion and extension of existing outbuildings to form two semi-detached 3-bed dwellings including creation of vehicular access off Radcliffe Road together with associated parking and amenity area (as amended by plan received 21.10.20).

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 20/01638/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reason:

 

The proposal, by reason of the loss of on-street parking in a locality that experiences parking pressures, insufficient parking provision for the proposed development and the associated creation of additional parking demands, will result in a detrimental loss of parking provision that will adversely affect the locality.  The proposal does not therefore comply with Policy 55 of the 1996 Adopted Local Plan; Policies SP6 and T2 of the Emerging Local Plan; Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework; and the Supplementary Planning Document ‘Vehicle Parking at New Development’ September 2011.

Minutes:

Audio Recording – 8 minutes 10 seconds.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/01638/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor Val Bryant

 

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised that the proposed parking spaces would be 2.4 x 4.8 m and that a condition relating to bin storage could be considered.

 

The Chair invited Mr Duncan Leach and Ms Lisa Montague to address the Committee.

 

Mr Duncan Leach thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including the following:

 

·                He objected to the application.

·                The officer’s recommendation was made on the basis of policy documents not relevant to the NPPF and was therefore flawed.

·                The 2019 Parking Strategy referred to was not part of the local development plan and should not be considered.

·                There was a vehicle parking Supplementary Planning Document from 2011 which should have been considered.

·                The vehicle parking SPD stated that there should be no unacceptable residual parking from new developments in a controlled parking zone.

·                The norm of parking provision for new developments was 2 spaces per dwelling which should be met in all cases unless a strong evidence case was presented and no such evidence had been provided.

·                Paragraph 5.2 of the officer’s report stated no alternative options were considered where there were alternative proposals put forward during the consultation phase which would not have the same parking access problems;

·                Policy 24 of the NHDC car parking strategy included in the SPD stated the Council will consider the need to include new residents in controlled parking zone permit schemes on a case by case basis taking into consideration planning conditions; the TRO would not need amendment as the Officer claimed;

·                This development did not meet the requirements of the local plan and constituted the privatisation of public land for private development at the expense of the local community.

 

Ms Lisa Montague thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including the following:

 

·                It had been argued that the CPZ had not been altered because the dashed lines remained unchanged and an H-bar had been installed; this was a disingenuous interpretation;

·                On this basis no public consultation was required which set a precedent that planning officers be able to drop curbs and make alterations to the street under delegated authority;

·                The functionality of the CPZ could be continuously eroded by developers at the expense of residents provided the dashed lines did not change;

·                Residents’ ability to park was going to be affected;

·                The application was not materially different to the proposal put forward in December with residents losing parking, putting more cars on the street, with inadequate parking provision within the development;

·                The site could be developed with an alternative scheme with adequate parking without a second drive way.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Ian Albert to address the Committee.

 

Councillor Ian Albert thanked the Chair for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

142.

20/02599/S73 LAND AT THE JUNCTION OF ASHWELL STREET AND, STATION ROAD, ASHWELL, HERTFORDSHIRE pdf icon PDF 293 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of 9 (6 No. Three Bedroom, 3 No. Four bedroom) dwellings with associated parking, amenity space and associated ancillary works, following demolition of existing redundant structures. Creation of new access from Station Road (Section 73 Application: Variation of Condition 2 of Planning Permission 19/00455/FP granted 11.08.2020 amendments to design improvements and provision of loft accommodation with rooflights plans - 2020/973/24; 2020/973/50A; 2020/973/51; 2020/973/52; 2020/973/53; 2020/973/54 and 2020/973/55), (amended plans received 27/11/20)

Additional documents:

Decision:

Councillor Tom Tyson advised he would be acting as Member Advocate on this item and would take no part in the debate or vote.

 

RESOLVED: That Application 20/02599/S73 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following additional conditions:

 

“22.  The garage hereby approved for plot 6 shall be retained for car parking purposes and for no other purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: As this garage is larger than others associated with this development to ensure its use is maintained for the stated purpose.

 

 

23.  Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended no development as set out in Classes A, B and C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order, (or any subsequent Statutory Instrument which revokes, amends and/or replaces those provisions) shall be carried out without first obtaining a specific planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: Given the nature of this development, the Local Planning Authority considers that development which would normally be "permitted development" should be retained within planning control in the interests of the character and amenities of the area.”

Minutes:

Audio Recording – 1 hour 1 minute.

 

Councillor Tom Tyson advised he would be acting as Member Advocate on this item and would take no part in the debate or vote.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of application 20/02599/S73 supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans including the following updates to the report:

 

·                A new condition to read “22.  The garage hereby approved for plot 6 shall be retained for car parking purposes and for no other purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: As this garage is larger than others associated with this development to ensure its use is maintained for the stated purpose” was recommended.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor David Levett

·                Councillor Michael Muir

·                Councillor Mike Rice

 

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised:

 

·                The housing mix resulting from this permission would have been less acceptable if it had been proposed with the initial application but not enough to have resulted in a recommendation for refusal;

·                The buildings were the same height as originally approved;

·                Residents of these properties would not require planning permission to convert loft spaces into bedrooms;

·                An applicant seeking alterations to original planning permission was not unusual and at while the timeline of this application was not ideal at this time there was no relevant enforcement issue .

 

The Chair invited Mr Norton Mahy to address the Committee.

 

Mr Norton Mahy thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                Section 73 was not an appropriate mechanism for this application;

·                Policy HS3 required that a range of house types be considered which was not undertaken for this report;

·                The original planning application passed the policy test on the basis of a mixture of 3 and 4 bedroom houses; if the policy were applied here it would find the housing mix unacceptable;

·                Acceptable housing mix was an important aspect of the Ashwell neighbourhood development plan;

·                That future residents of the development would be able to convert loft spaces into bedrooms was a spurious argument in favour of developers being permitted to do so;

·                Marketing from the developers indicated their intention was always to sell these dwellings with additional rooms.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala

 

In response to questions Mr Norton Mahy advised that the Ashwell neighbourhood plan outlined the housing mix requirements of the area clearly and there was a need for development of 2-4 bedroom dwellings.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Tom Tyson to address the Committee in his capacity as a Member Advocate.

 

Councillor Tom Tyson thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                It appeared that the houses in the development had been built and marketed as 4-5 bedroom dwellings as envisioned by this application, not the earlier application which had been approved;

·                This process appeared to circumnavigate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.

143.

20/03073/FP LAND AT NORTON COMMON, ICKNIELD WAY, LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY, HERTFORDSHIRE pdf icon PDF 209 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Installation of storage shipping container adjacent to bowling green car park.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 20/03073/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Minutes:

Audio Recording – 1 hour 56 minutes.

 

The Acting Principal Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of application 20/03075/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

·                Councillor David Levett

 

In response to questions the Acting Principal Planning Officer advised:

 

·                No trees would be removed but some bushes/shrubs would be, with their loss mitigated by the condition requiring planting and landscaping;

·                The space occupied would be smaller than a standard car parking space;

·                Cladding around the container had not been considered as a dark green colour combined with planting was considered sufficient;

·                A wooden shed or similar would still require planning permission as the site had no permitted development rights.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Ian Mantle to address the Committee.

 

Councillor Ian Mantle thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                Visual amenity was the central issue at hand;

·                Norton Common was a precious community asset and the location for this development was poorly chosen;

·                It was situated at the highest point on the road and overlooked the Common;

·                A shipping container was not attractive and should not be visually prominent anywhere;

·                An air raid shelter and other structures had been situated on the Common without damaging its visual amenity.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Ian Mantle for his presentation.

 

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

 

·                Councillor David Levett

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

·                Councillor Tony Hunter

·                Councillor Michael Muir

·                Councillor Mike Hughson

 

Issues considered during the debate included:

 

·                Security of the shipping container;

·                Cladding and visual amenity;

·                Location;

 

Councillor Tony Hunter proposed, Councillor Michael Muir seconded and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 20/03073/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

144.

20/03038/FP 103 BANCROFT, HITCHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG5 1NB pdf icon PDF 220 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Change of use of ground floor from financial and professional services (formerly Use Class A2, now Use Class E) to a mixed use of cafe/restaurant (Use Class E) and hot food takeaway (Sui Generis). Internal alterations. (As amended by details of recirculation unit and plan 2202-5-LMH-Proposed received on 15/02/2021)

Additional documents:

Decision:

Councillor Ian Moody declared an interest in that he knew the applicant from their previous work as a business in Codicote and therefore he would take no part in the debate or vote on this item.

 

Councillor Daniel Allen called for a recorded vote.

 

The result of the recorded vote was:

 

For: Councillors: Daniel Allen, Ruth Brown, Tony Hunter, David Levett, Mike Rice, Tom Tyson, Michael Muir, Carol Stanier

Total: 8

 

Against: Councillors: Val Bryant, Mike Hughson, Sue Ngwala

Total: 3

 

Abstain:

Total: Nil

 

Therefore it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 20/03038/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 informative:

 

“BIN INFORMATIVE:

 

A rubbish bin is to be placed on the pavement outside of the front window of the premises during trading hours only.  It is the responsibility of the user of the unit to empty the bin and ensure that it is not left out during the hours the unit is closed.”

Minutes:

Audio Recording – 2 hours 16  minutes.

 

The Chair advised that Items 10 & 11 would be presented and considered together.

 

N.B The debate and consideration of both items is recorded here at Minute 144.

 

Councillor Ian Moody declared an interest in that he knew the applicant from their previous work as a business in Codicote and therefore he would take no part in the debate or vote on this item.

 

Councillor Daniel Allen called for a recorded vote.

 

The Acting Principal Planning Officer presented the reports of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of Applications 20/03038/FP and 20/03039/LBC supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The Chair invited Mr Liam Jordan and Ms Cath Cole to address the Committee.

 

Mr Liam Jordan and Ms Catch Cole both thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee.

 

Mr Liam Jordan gave a presentation including:

 

·                Residents were in regular discussions with the local council about issues surrounding the influx of dining and take-away establishments into the area;

·                An additional business of this type in the conservation area would compound the negative impact;

·                Parking for take-aways in the area was unsustainable and unsafe;

·                Pedestrian queuing along Bancroft was causing access issues for residents;

·                Antisocial behaviour was an increasing problem in the area due to the proliferation of take-away establishments;

·                There was not sufficient chimney extraction for the premises;

·                There was no rear parking for the premises.

 

Ms Cath Cole gave a presentation including:

 

·                The conversion of restaurants in to café/takeaway establishments in the area had caused problems with parking, antisocial behaviour, smell, litter and crowding, and demonstrated the negative impact of inundating an area with café/takeaway businesses;

·                The conversion of a further unit to café/takeaway use would further exacerbate these problems which harm residents and would cause further highways issues;

·                Residents are impacted by antisocial behaviour from customers.

 

The following Members asked questions of the speakers:

 

·                Councillor David Levett

 

In response to questions Mr Liam Jordan advised that the alleyways on the side of the shop provided access to business premises.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Ian Albert to address the Committee.

 

Councillor Ian Albert thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                He endorsed the points raised by the public speakers in objection;

·                Hitchin had a thriving night-time economy and Bancroft had a number of popular establishments which drew people to the area;

·                Business owners in the area were cognisant of the issues including parking which impacted local residents;

·                There can be one too many café/restaurant/takeaway premises in one area and this could be the tipping point;

·                There were now significant parking problems in the area which was causing problems for residents;

·                The application should be rejected on the basis that there were too many similar establishments in the area already and the customers attracted would exacerbate parking problems;

·                There were considerable environmental health issues from extraction systems in the area where the system was not adequate to handle the nature  ...  view the full minutes text for item 144.

145.

20/03039/LBC 103 BANCROFT, HITCHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG5 1NB pdf icon PDF 204 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Internal and external alterations (as amended by plan 2202-5-LMH-Proposed received on 15/02/2021)

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 20/03039/LBC be GRANTED Listed Building Consent subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Minutes:

Audio Recording – 2 hours 55 minutes.

 

N.B the report, consideration and debate of this item is recorded at Minute 144.

 

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed, Councillor Michael Muir seconded and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 20/03039/LBC be GRANTED Listed Building Consent subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

146.

20/02573/FP LAND ADJACENT, COACH DRIVE, HITCHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE pdf icon PDF 335 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of one detached 4-bed dwelling including creation of vehicular access off Gosmore Road.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 20/02573/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following additional condition:

 

“Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, full details of additional soft landscaping/planting within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such planting shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details within the first planting season following the first occupation of the development. The additional trees and planting shall thereafter be retained for five years following planting and should any trees die or are damaged within the first five years they shall be replaced by trees of a similar size and species and thereafter retained for the remainder of the five year period.

 

Reason: To achieve a high quality soft landscaping scheme associated with this development in the interests of amenity and biodiversity.”

Minutes:

Audio Recording – 2 hours 57 minutes.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of Application 20/02573/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The Chair invited Mr Peter Hope to address the Committee.

 

Mr Peter Hope thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                He was opposed to the development;

·                The proposal would result in development out of keeping with the general character of the area;

·                The development was in-fill with significant visual impact on the surrounding area impairing its character and quality;

·                The proposed plot was smaller than that of surrounding residences and a development of this size on a small plot would impact neighbouring buildings;

·                Plans submitted indicated the north and south walls were 85 and 90 centimetres respectively from the border fences;

·                The site was elevated and had rear windows that would overlook neighbouring gardens resulting in loss of light and invasion of privacy;

·                The front aspect of the building was away from the main building line of the road and therefore out of keeping with the area;

·                Vehicles emerging from the site would exit on to a blind section of Gosmore Road at increased risk and as such the development contravened NPPF highways requirements.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Simon Harwood to address the Committee.

 

Councillor Simon Harwood thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                The development would substantially alter the prevailing character of the area;

·                The dwelling would grossly in-fill the land between existing properties;

·                The proposal would impact both the built and environmental character of the area;

·                Section 5.1.1 of the report states that the site was not development in the Green Belt which was not accurate where the access drive to the property sits on green belt land;

·                Access to the property off Gosmore Road was problematic for the reasons outlined above;

·                The front aspect of the property would form a new building line significant in front of existing properties;

·                The proposed dwelling would be too close to neighbouring dwellings;

·                The garden was not redundant before recent occupation;

·                The application should be rejected on the basis that the development sets a precedent for infill of garden land between properties changing the character of the local area.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

 

In response to questions Councillor Simon Harwood advised that he lived around 1km from the proposed development and was not adversely affected by the proposals.

 

The Chair invited Mr Jerry Fiore to address the Committee.

 

Mr Jerry Fiore thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                The report of the Development and Conservation Manager was comprehensive and he endorsed its contents and recommendation;

·                The proposal was a high quality design in keeping with the surrounding area and acceptable on planning grounds;

·                The architect was keen to incorporate design elements that made the development sympathetic to the area including matching materials, a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 146.

147.

20/00643/LBC RYE END FARM, GREEN LANE, CODICOTE, HITCHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG4 8SU pdf icon PDF 211 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Internal and external alterations to Barn, East Stables and West Stables. Single storey link extension between Farmhouse and East Stables and between East Stables and Barn and single storey extension to front (east side) of West Stables.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 20/00643/LBC be GRANTED Listed Building Consent subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Minutes:

Audio Recording – 3 hours 20 minutes.

 

N.B The presentations, debate and consideration of Items 13 and 14 are recorded here at Minute 147.

 

The Conservation Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00643/LBC supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans along with the following update:

 

·                The description of the proposal should be amended to omit reference to the single storey extension to front (east side) of West Stables.

·                The application has been amended by drawing nos. 11F, 12F, 13E, 14F, 15D, 16D, 17B, 18G, 19E, 20D and 22B received on 16 December 2020 and amplified by drawing nos. REF-MNP-WSC-SK-S-4011 Rev P1 and MBS-280 East Stables and MBS-280 West Stables received on 21 January 2021.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor David Levett

 

In response to questions the Conservation Officer advised that the buildings at risk register categorised sites according to their condition and state of occupancy; if a property was vacant and in fair condition it would be considered vulnerable; if vacant and in poor condition it is ‘at risk.’ According to structural assessments this was in fair condition and as are considered ‘vulnerable’ and if left unoccupied and unmaintained could fall in to a higher ‘at risk’ category.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 20/00642/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The Chair invited Mr Hunter Peace to address the Committee.

 

Mr Hunter Peace thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                He objected to the proposals;

·                He had no objection to the conversion of existing buildings on the plot and the conversion of all existing buildings would triple the available floor space on the site;

·                The locale was uniquely unspoilt by modern building development and was one of the few truly rural locations in Hertfordshire;

·                The site was of high heritage value;

·                The owners had already erected two stable buildings in front of the listed barn house and further applications were expected;

·                Demolition work had been carried out and no enforcement action by the Council had been taken; the buildings were not at imminent risk of collapse as had been claimed;

·                There was a statutory duty to protect heritage assets and to avoid harm but there was no evidence these properties would fall in to the at risk category without this development;

·                The proposed cladding of the property and the link buildings between existing structures were out of keeping with the area;

·                No landscaping recommendations had been made.

 

The Chair invited Councillor John Bishop to address the Committee:

 

·                There was a statutory duty to protect heritage assets;

·                This proposal represented overdevelopment of the site;

·                It was not returning the site to its optimal use;

·                There were grounds to refuse these applications on the basis that there was no public benefit to compensate for the harm caused to a listed building; the officer had identified one benefit based on an unfounded assumption only.

 

The Chair invited Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 147.

Audio Recording of Meeting MP3 114 MB

148.

20/00642/FP RYE END FARM, GREEN LANE, CODICOTE, HITCHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG4 8SU pdf icon PDF 240 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Change of use of Barn and East & West Stables to ancillary residential accommodation and change of use of land from agricultural to residential. Single storey link extension between Farmhouse and East Stables and between East Stables and Barn and single storey extension to front (east side) of West Stables.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 20/00642/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Minutes:

Audio Recording: 3 hours 42 minutes.

 

N.B The report in respect of this application was presented in conjunction with Item 14. The debate and consideration of these items is recorded at Minute 147.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That application 20/00642/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.