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 and

·                Voting

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.

Audio Recording – 4 seconds.

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 and

·                Voting

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.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sean Prendergast, Sue Ngwala, David Levett and Mike Rice.

Having given due notice Councillor Sam Collins advised he would be substituting for Councillor Sean Prendergast, Councillor Ian Mantle advised he would be substituting for Councillor Sue Ngwala, and Councillor Michael Muir advised he would be substituting for Councillor David Levett.

Audio recording – 3 minutes 35 seconds.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sean Prendergast, Sue Ngwala, David Levett and Mike Rice.

Having given due notice Councillor Sam Collins advised he would be substituting for Councillor Sean Prendergast, Councillor Ian Mantle advised he would be substituting for Councillor Sue Ngwala, and Councillor Michael Muir advised he would be substituting for Councillor David Levett.

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.

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.

Audio recording – 4 minutes and 7 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 meeting would adjourn for a comfort break around 9pm or after the first item, whichever was sooner.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers and Member Advocate were in attendance.

Audio recording – 5 minutes and 49 seconds.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers and Member Advocate were in attendance.

RESOLVED:  That application 20/00073/FP be GRANTED planning application subject to the conditions in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following amended and additional reasons:

Condition 10 to be amended to read:

“Development B - Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, details of electrical wiring to accommodate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra low emission vehicles for each dwelling, and each flat block (1 charging point per minimum 5 parking spaces shall be provided, including two charging points for Block D), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of each specific unit.

Reason - To contribute to the objective of providing a sustainable transport network and to provide the necessary infrastructure to help off-set the adverse of the operational phase of the development on local air quality.”

Condition 17 to be amended to read:

“Development B - The measures set out in the submitted Ecological Assessment, and Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment (including any amendments and/or additions to these documents) shall be implemented prior to occupation of Development B, and thereafter shall remain in perpetuity.

Reason: In the interests of the protection of ecology and providing a net ecological gain within the site.”

Condition 23 to be amended to read:

“The relevant parts of the development (A and B) shall not be occupied/used until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition 19 for Development A, and condition 20 for Development B, and the provision made for analysis and publication where appropriate.

Reason: In the interests of archaeology.”

Condition 30 to be amended to read:

“Development A - Existing Access –Improved: Cambridge Road- Prior to the first use of the Sports Hall, the existing vehicular access onto Cambridge Road shall be upgraded to the satisfaction of the LPA, to provide a raised pedestrian crossing together with a right turn lane and new section of footways to each side of the access with tactile paving and dropped kerbs, as shown on the plan ref Ghosted right turn priority junction 191900-008 Rev C. Arrangements shall be made for surface water drainage to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the highway carriageway.

Reason: To ensure construction of a satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety, traffic movement and amenity in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).”

Condition 31 to be amended to read:

“Development B  - Existing Access – Improved: St Michael’s Road- Prior to the first occupation of the residential development hereby permitted, a revised plan should be submitted that shows the existing vehicular access onto St Michael’s Road narrowed down (subject to tracking) and upgraded to provide a raised pedestrian crossing with tactile paving. Arrangements shall be  ...  view the full decision text for item 63.

Audio recording – 6 minutes and 9 seconds.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that Hertfordshire County Council Growth and Infrastructure Unit had informed him that paragraph 3.1.1 of the report should instead read “towards childcare provision as part of the new 2FE primary school on the Highover Farm Hitchin development site.”

The Senior Planning Officer advised that there had been two updates to the Section 106 agreement: the £122,000 contribution to the Hitchin Station Access scheme had been reinstated by the applicant and two new grass pitches are included as well as the full size artificial pitch in the off-site developments for the Priory School.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00073/FP supported by a visual presentation in consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Councillors asked questions of clarification regarding the report:

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

·                Councillor Ian Mantle

·                Councillor Sam Collins

·                Councillor Val Bryant

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer noted that:

·                The reduction in amenity area size applied to all flats in the development;

·                The play area would be managed by a private management company which was secured by the Section 106 agreement;

·                Phasing agreements as part of the Section 106 agreement would ensure that both parts of the development would be delivered if approved;

·                Condition 10 stated the details of electrical charging facilities to be provided for each dwelling;

·                Advice would need to be sought from the Air Quality Officer on the appropriate level of EV provision for the blocks of flats.

In response to questions the Legal Regulatory Team Leader and Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that:

·                The play area would be kept in perpetuity;

·                The public open space scheme includes the equipment in the children’s play areas which would be managed by the management company engaged;

In response to questions Matt Armstrong, the Highways Development Manager – HCC advised:

·                Modelling showed that during peak hours at the signalised junction the biggest increase was during the AM peak with 5 extra queuing vehicles, adding 14 seconds to journey time; at the roundabout the model showed an extra 2 queueing vehicles during the PM peak;

·                The increase in traffic was not large.

Dixon Searle Senior Consultant, Nick Molyneux presented the Viability Report as follows:

·                the housing scheme in itself was viable; the threat to viability of the project came from the college facilities;

·                In the applicants own appraisal the college sporting facilities were of no revenue generating value which was normal;

·                After disagreement over the works cost a quantity surveyor was commissioned; the agreed position after the survey was £1.6 million below the submitted works cost and the viability appraisal was conducted with that cost in mind in addition to other figure figures disputed with the applicant;

·                The appraisal indicated residual land value of £1.5 million;

·                The latest appraisal assumed that a land value no more than £1.5 million was allowable alongside the enabling cost, effectively counting the provision of sports facilities as an abnormal cost in the enabling housing development;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

RESOLVED: That application 19/02999/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following amended and additional reasons:

Condition 15 to be amended to read:

“Notwithstanding the plans submitted, the parking provision shall be reviewed annually from first occupation for a period of 5 years through monitoring of use and car ownership. Monitoring shall include:

    i.       The use of parking spaces using data from weekdays;

   ii.       Car ownership/staff car useage;

  iii.       The provision of active and passive electric vehicle charging;

  iv.       Travel plan initiatives.

Car parking provision that is used less than 40% of weekdays throughout that year shall be converted into landscaping to be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: to ensure that the parking provision is being utilised to capacity.”

Condition 26 to be amended to read:

“Prior to occupation, there shall be EV charge bays for all office use car parking bays and all residential use car parking bays. Consideration should be given to a range of slow, fast and rapid charge points. Such bays shall remain operational in perpetuity thereafter.

Reason: To contribute to the objective of providing a sustainable transport network and to provide the necessary infrastructure to help off-set the adverse impact of the operational phase of the development on local air quality.”

N.B The Chair called a comfort break at 10:00 PM and the meeting resumed at 10:05 PM.

The Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer took a roll call of Members, Officers, and registered speakers in attendance.

Audio Recording – 2 hours 36 minutes and 38 seconds.

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update to the report noting that paragraph 4.6.1 should note that the applicant is in agreement with all pre-commencement conditions.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 19/02999/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Chair invited Mr Anthony Burrows to address the Committee.

Mr Burrows thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 19/02999/FP including:

·                He had previously been a District Councillor and was now a resident of Letchworth Garden City;

·                He had always advocated for planning decisions to be based on preserving the local character of areas within the District;

·                Town Lodge was in his view an iconic building;

·                Town Lodge was one of 3 buildings designed by architect Cecil Hignett in the Garden City which should be preserved;

The following Members asked questions of clarification to Mr Burrows:

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

In response to questions Mr Burrows advised:

·                He did not accept that the site in question was a brown fields site;

·                The façade of the Town Lodge building should be preserved with development taking place behind it.

The Chair invited Mr Chris Evans and Mr Chris Wilson to address the Committee.

Mr Christopher Evans thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 19/02999/FP including:

·                Croudace Homes had their regional office based in Letchworth and felt Letchworth was the perfect location for them;

·                Members of staff enjoyed using local businesses in town;

·                The business had outgrown its space in the Spirella Building;

·                Croudace Homes believed the development proposal met the high standards of quality it demands and the Council requires;

·                The development was projected to cost more to build than its end market value but Croudace was willing to make this investment as owner-occupier;

·                All the residential parking and 39 out of 57 of the office car parking spaces would have EV charging stations;

·                The remaining office car parking spaces would have the infrastructure to convert to EV charging stations in the future; 5 of the spaces would be pay-as-you-go stations for public use out of office hours;

·                The office buildings would have integrated photovoltaic charging panels and have a higher fabric efficiency than the current constructions;

·                The proposed design would provide 35 square meters more green space than the present site, boosting biodiversity and following Garden City principles more closely;

·                It would not be possible to keep the existing Town Lodge building;

·                Historic England had assessed the building and decided it did not warrant listing, and reported that its demolition would result in ‘less than substantial harm’ to the Letchworth Garden City conservation area;

·                The current building was not fabric efficient or suitable for an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

RESOLVED: That application 20/01692/FPH be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons below:

The proposed extensions by reason of their size, siting, and design cumulatively with previous enlargements to the dwelling would fail to be subordinate to the host dwelling and would be harmful to its character and appearance and that of the locality.  The proposal would be contrary to the provision of Saved Policies 28 and 57 of the North Herts District Local Plan 1996, Policies D1 and D2 of the Emerging Local Plan and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Audio Recording: 3 hours 29 minutes

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update to the report that the applicant had agreed to an extension of time up to 26 November which had not been in place at the time of publication.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/01692/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions:

·                Councillor Mike Hughson

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised:

·                The drawing in the presentation was not a document submitted by the applicant and therefore any errors should not be considered as part of the application;

The Chair invited Mr Jonathan West to address the Committee.

Mr Jonathan West thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak in objection to application 20/01692/FPH including:

·                Mr West was resident at 7 Sterling Close;

·                The House on 6 Cubitt Close had been extended further since the drawing in the presentation was made;

·                Mr West’s property and the property in the application shared a side boundary;

·                When it was first built 6 Cubitt Close was one of the largest 4 bedroomed domiciles on the development;

·                Since then the footprint of the house not including conservatories or greenhouses have increased by 2.6x its original size by way of single and double storey extensions;

·                This was the 16^th application to the planning authority concerning the property;

·                There was already an extension less than 1 meter away from the boundary with Mr West’s property which spanned the length of their garden and a third of their house, with a window that looked directly into their garden and lounge;

·                The present planning application mentioned the destruction of an existing ‘conservatory,’ where the original application for said structure to be destroyed described it as a ‘greenhouse,’; it had no floor, heating, lighting, and never been used as a living space.

·                Mr West felt describing the structure as a conservatory would lead Members to consider the proposed new conservatory as a replacement of an existing one;

·                The proposed conservatory was bigger and in a different position to the first and the destruction of the greenhouse should bear no relevance;

·                The proposed conservatory would overlook Mr West’s dining room and would be directly below the windows of his bedroom causing issues with noise as a result of poor insulation;

·                The proposed development would result in an overall increase of 2.9x the original footprint of the property;

·                Loud construction works on previous projects had extended into unsociable hours and it appeared no attempt had been made to comply with noise control measures;

·                The Environmental Health noise abatement team had investigated;

·                The application would result in an over developed site and an adverse impact on Mr West’s family.

The Chair thanked Mr West for his presentation.

The Chair invited Councillor Elizabeth Dennis-Harburg to address the Committee as Member Advocate.

Councillor Elizabeth Dennis-Harburg thanked the chair for the opportunity to address the committee as Member Advocate in respect of application 20/01692/FPH including:

·                This  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

There were no Planning Appeals.

There were no Planning Appeals.

The next meeting of the Planning Control Committee was on the 17^th December and the Chair invited Members and Officers to wear their Christmas jumpers or similar attire at the meeting.