Agenda, decisions and minutes

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 Councillors Val Bryant, Mike Hughson, Kay Tart and Terry Tyler.

Having given due notice Councillors Ian Mantle and Michael Muir advised that they would be substituting for Councillors Val Bryant and Ian Moody respectively.

Audio recording – 2 minutes 10 seconds.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Val Bryant, Mike Hughson, Kay Tart and Terry Tyler.

Having given due notice Councillors Ian Mantle and Michael Muir advised that they would be substituting for Councillors Val Bryant and Ian Moody respectively.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27 May 2021.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 27 May 2021 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

Audio Recording – 2 minutes 37 seconds.

Councillor Sue Ngwala proposed, Councillor Morgan Derbyshire seconded and it was:

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 27 May 2021 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

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 – 3 minutes 34 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)       The Chair clarified matters for registered speakers as follows:

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 bell would sound at 4 1/2 minutes to alert them that they have 30 seconds left

At 5 minutes, a bell would sound again to signify that the speaker must cease.

The Chair noted for item 6 that they had increased the speaking time to 10 minutes per group i.e. 10 minutes for objectors and 10 minutes for supporters. This 10-minute time limit also applies to Member Advocates.

(5)       The Chair advised that Item 8 on the agenda, application 20/01764/FP, had been removed and would not be taken due to additional consultations being required before presentation.  

Audio recording – 3 minutes 43 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)       The Chair clarified matters for registered speakers as follows:

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 bell would sound at 4 1/2 minutes to alert them that they have 30 seconds left

At 5 minutes, a bell would sound again to signify that the speaker must cease.

The Chair noted for item 6 that they had increased the speaking time to 10 minutes per group i.e. 10 minutes for objectors and 10 minutes for supporters. This 10-minute time limit also applies to Member Advocates.

(5)       The Chair advised that Item 8 on the agenda, application 20/01764/FP, had been removed and would not be taken due to additional consultations being required before presentation. 

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

Audio recording – 5 minutes 45 seconds.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline planning application for residential development of up to 42 dwellings, all matters reserved but access (as amended by plans and information received 09-06-2020, 23-07-2020 and 10-12-2020).

Councillor Michael Muir advised that he was a Hertfordshire County Councillor. However, he had not had any input at County level on this application nor had the application gone before the Hertfordshire County Council Development Control Committee. Having sought advice from the Deputy Monitoring Officer, he would remain in the room and take part in the debate and vote on this item.

Councillor Sue Ngwala advised that the previous time this application came before the Committee she had seconded to a motion to refuse the application on Highways grounds. The application was deferred until a Highways officer could address the Committee. Having sought advice from the Deputy Monitoring Officer, she would remain in the room and take part in the debate and vote on this item as a Highways officer was present to provide information not available at the previous meeting.

Councillor Morgan Derbyshire exercised his Councillors’ Speaking Right and did not take part in the debate or vote on this item.

RESOLVED: That application 19/00520/OP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reason:

“In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed vehicular access associated with this development would generate additional traffic onto Croft Lane which has a substandard road width. Such additional traffic would be to the detriment of highway safety in the locality, contrary to Policies T1, SP6 and SP7 of the Emerging North Hertfordshire District Local Plan (2011-2031) and to paragraphs 109 and 127 (f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).”

Audio Recording – 6 minutes.

Councillor Michael Muir advised that he was a Hertfordshire County Councillor. However, he had not had any input at County level on this application nor had the application gone before the Hertfordshire County Council Development Control Committee. Having sought advice from the Deputy Monitoring Officer, he would remain in the room and take part in the debate and vote on this item.

Councillor Sue Ngwala advised that the previous time this application came before the Committee she had seconded to a motion to refuse the application on Highways grounds. The application was deferred until a Highways officer could address the Committee. Having sought advice from the Deputy Monitoring Officer, she would remain in the room and take part in the debate and vote on this item as a Highways officer was present to provide information not available at the previous meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 19/00520/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

·                Councillor David Levett;

In response the Senior Planning Officer advised that his recommendation was made on the basis of a balance between planning policy requirements, the level of harm anticipated as a result of the proposal, and the necessity to provide a form of access technically acceptable by Highways standards that would enable the development to provide the benefits of affordable housing and appropriate housing mix.

The Chair invited Mr Kevin Hinton and Mr Nathan Hanks to address the Committee.

Mr Kevin Hinton thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

·                He was a resident of the area for 37 years and was Chair of the Norton Action Group;

·                The officers report states that Croft Lane was the only feasible access option but the public consultation conducted by Vincent and Gorbing Ltd stated that Croft Lane access was the ‘achilles heel,’ of the development;

·                Impact to the surrounding conservation area had been limited by the current access options and would be increased if this development was approved;

·                Croft Lane was currently in keeping with the conservation area in that it was home to buildings designed by key architects involved in the foundation of Letchworth Garden City;

·                There were sight lines to the conservation area which would be impacted;

·                The report’s judgement that no substantial harm would ensure as a result of the access scheme and development was a judgement of convenience;

·                Croft Lane was 3.8m wide at its narrowest and there were no footpaths for 320 meters from the access to the proposed site;

·                Pedestrians and vehicles shared the access surface;

·                According to the access assessment vehicle movement would increase by 350% between 8AM-9AM;

·                The assessment did not make mention of the children expected on the site as a result of the 145 bedroom development;

·                The proposed pedestrian crossing would attract more pedestrians to Croft Lane;

·                The Information Commissioners Office had confirmed the NAG’s request for unredaction of key  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of a 73-bed care home (within Class C2), parking, access, landscaping and other associated works

RESOLVED: That application 20/03018/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio Recording – 1 hour 36 minutes.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/03018/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Chair invited Ms Laura Grimason to address the Committee.

Ms Laura Grimason thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

·                She was acting as agent for the applicant and speaking in support of the application;

·                The property would be owned by Frontier Estates and managed by Quantum Care delivering care home services to residents;

·                Quantum Care was based in Hertfordshire and run on a not-for-profit basis, worked with Herts County Council, and operated a home in Royston;

·                The new home would reflect the needs of the community and deliver services to cater for a mixture of residents with differing needs;

·                There would be accommodation for residents in need of 24hr specialist support in addition to medical services;

·                Some residents would be unable to leave the site unaccompanied;

·                The site had been subject to two applications recently, the first of which was rejected by the Council but approved at appeal, and the second of which was an amended scheme at a reduced scale;

·                This application would provide 73 beds in buildings over two storeys, minimising the difference between the care home and future neighbouring homes;

·                The development provided an innovative approach to levels and gave residents direct access to gardens from each floor;

·                The development provided benefits including the provision of care beds to meet a local shortfall and wider benefits to the health and wellbeing of the community, allowing residents to access care in their home towns where proximity to their families was important;

·                The pandemic had demonstrated the importance of purpose built care homes;

·                Royston had no care home beds with en suite provision which this development would provide;

·                En suite provision was a minimum standard and essential for infection control;

·                The care home would provide a short term economic benefit due to construction and a longer term benefit in the provision of 53 full time jobs in the home;

·                The site was considered appropriate and sustainable for development in ecological term and the development complemented the character of the area with additional landscaping and biodiversity enhancements.

The following Members asked questions:

·                Councillor David Levett

In response to questions Laura Grimason advised the applicant had not yet decided which of the two development proposals would be progressed if both were granted planning permission.

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

·                Councillor Tony Hunter

·                Councillor Ian Mantle

Councillor Tony Hunter proposed, Councillor Ian Mantle seconded and on the vote it was:

RESOLVED: That application 20/03018/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

Residential development comprising of 9 dwellings including associated parking, landscaping and refuse storage and provision of car parking spaces for Public House use following demolition of existing outbuildings (Amended by plans received. 18.03.2021).

This item was withdrawn from the Agenda and was not presented at this meeting.

This item was withdrawn from the Agenda and was not presented at this meeting.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Residential development comprising of one five storey building providing 24 apartments (3 x 1-bed, 20 x 2-bed and 1 x 3-bed) with associated car parking, access and landscaping. (Additional plan received 04 May 2021)

Councillor David Levett declared an interest in that he was a member of the Cabinet which had made the decision to sell the land concerned by this application. As such he would take no part in the debate or vote on this item and would leave the meeting.

Councillor Tony Hunter declared an interest in that he was a member of the Cabinet which had made the decision to sell the land concerned by this application. As such he would take no part in the debate or vote on this item and would leave the meeting.

The Legal Regulatory Team Manager confirmed that as Councillor Levett and Councillor Hunter had made a decision as members of the executive to sell this land conditional on gaining planning permission they have fettered their discretion to take part in the decision making process for planning permission.  To the reasonable person, if they were to take part in the decision for planning permission at PCC it would be seen as predetermination.

RESOLVED: That application 21/00401/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons outlined 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 internal cycle and mobility vehicle storage and EV charging, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such works shall thereafter be carried out in completed accordance with the approved details or particulars, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.”

Audio Recording – 1 hour 59 minutes.

Councillor David Levett declared an interest in that he was a member of the Cabinet which had made the decision to sell the land concerned by this application. As such he would take no part in the debate or vote on this item and would leave the meeting.

Councillor Tony Hunter declared an interest in that he was a member of the Cabinet which had made the decision to sell the land concerned by this application. As such he would take no part in the debate or vote on this item and would leave the meeting.

The Legal Regulatory Team Manager confirmed that as Councillor Levett and Councillor Hunter had made a decision as members of the executive to sell this land conditional on gaining planning permission they have fettered their discretion to take part in the decision making process for planning permission.  To the reasonable person, if they were to take part in the decision for planning permission at PCC it would be seen as predetermination.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 21/00401/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions:

·                Councillor Ian Mantle

·                Councillor Michael Muir

In response to questions the Development and Conservation Manager advised:

·                Detailed specifications of cycle storage in the development were not included in the application but a sizeable unit had been allocated, and if Members were minded a condition on size could be included;

·                The applicant was not an affordable housing provider and would not act as the owners of the affordable housing in the scheme.

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

·                Councillor Ian Mantle

·                Councillor Michael Muir

In response to questions the Development and Conservation Manager advised that a condition on electric vehicle charging could be added to the recommendations of the report.

Councillor Ian Mantle proposed, Councillor Michael Muir seconded and it was:

RESOLVED: That application 21/00401/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons outlined 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 internal cycle and mobility vehicle storage and EV charging, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such works shall thereafter be carried out in completed accordance with the approved details or particulars, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.”

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

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 – 2 hours 14 minutes.

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

It was:

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.