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

Audio recording – 24 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

·                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.

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 Ian Moody.

Having given due notice, Councillor George Davies advised that he would be substituting for Councillor Moody.

Audio recording – 6 minutes 3 seconds

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ian Moody.

Having given due notice, Councillor George Davies advised that he was substituting for Councillor Ian Moody.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 18 March 2021.

RESOLVED:

(1)       That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 18 March 2021 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair; and

(2)       That, with the authorisation of the Chair, her electronic signature and initials be attached to the Minutes approved in (1) above.

Audio Recording – 6 minutes 13 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 18 March 2021 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair; and

(2)       That, with the authorisation of the Chair, her electronic signature and initials be attached to the Minutes approved in (1) above.

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 – 7 minutes 6 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.

(5)       The Chair advised that the time provided for speeches had been extended for Item 8 to 10 minutes for each group of speakers i.e. 10 minutes for objectors and 10 minutes for supporters. This 10 minute time limit also applied to Member Advocates.

Audio recording – 7 minutes 11 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 the time provided for speeches had been extended for Item 8 only by 5 minutes for each group of speakers i.e. 10 minutes for objectors and 10 minutes for supporters. This 10 minute time limit also applied to Member Advocates;

(6)       The Chair advised that a comfort break would be held at around 9pm or after Item 7.

In response to a comment by Councillor Hunter, the Chair advised that careful planning would go into the scheduling of applications on future Committee agendas to avoid meetings going past 11pm where possible.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

Audio recording – 10 minutes 43 seconds

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline planning application for up to 99 residential dwellings (including up to 40% affordable housing), introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children's play area, surface water flood mitigation, vehicular access point via the demolition of an existing property on Echo Hill (all matters to be reserved save access).

RESOLVED: That application 20/00744/OP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:

(1)       By reason of its prominent position and the topography of the site and location outside the settlement boundary of Royston, the proposed development would be likely to result in significant localised adverse impacts on both the character of the area and visual receptors, particularly when viewed from certain locations on Royston Heath. While these impacts could be mitigated to a limited extent, the combination of residential built form on high ground and the associated urbanising infrastructure, and development breaking the skyline, would act to occasion a marked and adverse change in the character of the immediate and intermediate locality and wider valued landscape. This adverse impact would represent conflict with the aims of the NPPF and Polices CGB1, SP5, SP12c and NE1 of the emerging local plan and Policies 6 and 21 of the Saved local plan.

(2)       At the time of determination the planning application, the subject of this decision notice, has not been accompanied by a valid legal undertaking (in the form of a completed S106 Obligation) securing the provision of the requisite infrastructure and financial contributions towards off site infrastructure or on site affordable housing. The secure delivery of these obligations is required to mitigate the impact of the development on the identified services in accordance with the adopted Planning Obligations SPD, Saved Policy 51 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 - with Alterations or proposed Local Plan Policy HS2 of the Submission Local Plan (2011-2031). Without this mechanism to secure these provisions the development scheme cannot be considered as a sustainable form of development contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Proactive Statement:

Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council acted proactively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be overcome. The Council has therefore acted proactively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

Audio recording – 10 minutes 54 seconds

Outline planning application for up to 99 residential dwellings (including up to 40% affordable housing), introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children's play area, surface water flood mitigation, vehicular access point via the demolition of an existing property on Echo Hill (all matters to be reserved save access).

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00744/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans and provided the Committee with the following updates:

·                Additional representations had been received since the publication of the report;

·                Natural England had stated that following removal of the emergency access they had no objection subject to appropriate mitigation being secured by the Section 106;

·                An email had been received from Therfield Heath Conservators regarding concerns about the report and recommendation being presented to the Committee this evening – this representation had been responded to and did not change the recommendation for approval or the details in the Heads of Terms in the Section 106;

·                A letter from Buxton Solicitors on behalf of the action group ‘Say No To Gladman’ had been received and a response from the NHDC legal advisor had been sent covering the issues raised regarding access, the EIA, the tilted balance and the SSSI, and concluding that NHDC did not consider that there was a risk of judicial review should the Committee be minded to grant the application;

·                A late representation had been received regarding land ownership and access. This issue had been raised numerous times and the applicant had responded stating that no third-party land has been included and this had been checked and confirmed on numerous occasions. Any dispute would be a civil matter and not a planning consideration.

Spelling mistakes and clarifications on the Report

·                There was an error in the text of the Report at Section 1.4 – the text was out of date and should be in line with what was stated in Section 4.3.16 where the emerging Local Plan was now well advanced and the Local Plan Inspector had issued their proposed further modifications following the additional hearings earlier that year;

·                4.3.28 – there was a spelling mistake: ‘tiled balance’ should read ‘tilted balance’;

·                4.4.3 – ‘can be sustained at appeal’ should read ‘cannot be sustained at appeal’.

Conditions – changes to wording

·                Condition 22 – Section E added ‘details of a phased landscaping scheme of all planting to be submitted with agreed triggers’;

·                Condition 24 – ‘hedges’ had been added to trees in the wording where appropriate to ensure their protection;

·                Informative 11, Design – Wording had been added so the first sentence would read: ‘Given the topography of the site and the general character of the area, as part of any reserve matter application, the inclusion of a single storey development on the more sensitive areas of the development should be considered and any development above two storeys needs to be carefully considered and adequately justified.’.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

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 Morgan Derbyshire declared that he was acting as Member Advocate on the item and would therefore not take part in the debate and vote.

RESOLVED: That application 19/00520/OP be DEFERRED for the following reason:

To allow the Committee sufficient time to consider updated information.

Audio recording – 1 hour 37 minutes 21 seconds

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).

It was confirmed that none of the Committee Members were Hertfordshire County Councillors and therefore did not have a declarable interest as Hertfordshire County Council owned the land.

Councillor Morgan Derbyshire declared that he was acting as Member Advocate on this item and would therefore not take part in the debate and vote.

The Senior Strategic Sites Officer presented the report in respect of application 19/00520/OP and provided the Committee with the following updates:

·                There was a technical issue with the Planning Officer’s report in that the Conditions requested had not been fully included in the report which had been published on the website;

·                Condition 1: Reference to ‘means of access’ had been deleted and replaced with ‘internal access’, as means of access was unreserved within the application under consideration;

·                Conditions 3 and 4: reference to ‘demolition’ had been removed, as no demolition was proposed at part of this development;

·                Highways Conditions 16-21: All of the beginnings of these Conditions had been updated to include: ‘The occupation of development authorised by this permission shall not begin…’ and then continue to have exactly the same contents other than the following:

·                Condition 17: Drawing number ST-2571-22 Swept Path Analysis Croft Lane Option 7b had been added;

·                Condition 18 had been shortened and would now read as follows:

‘The occupation of the development authorised by this permission shall not begin until the offsite highway improvement works as indicated on drawings numbered ST-2571-21-A Means of Access Croft Lane Option 7b, ST-2571-18-B Croft Lane Access Strategy and ST-2571-22 Swept Path Analysis Croft Lane Option 7b have been undertaken. The potential footway and crossing on Norton Road (contribution towards Highway Authority) presented on drawing Croft Lane Access Strategy, ST-2571-18-B should be changed to: Provision of footway and signalised pedestrian crossing on Norton Road (the works to be undertaken under s278 works). The works shall be completed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority and highway authority before occupation of the development.’

Reason: To ensure construction of satisfactory development that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate standard in the interest of highway safety and amenity and in accordance with Policies 5, 13 and 21 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).

·                Former Points a, b and c of Condition 18 had been removed as they were included in up-to-date drawings, so did not need to be included in the Condition. The Condition did not reduce the amount of s278 works required or the works required on the road to make the access safe;

·                There were two additional prior to commencement Conditions: Condition 25 to ensure that the details of the offsite highway improvement works are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, the details to include surface materials, footpath surfaces, kerbs, grass verges,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Two storey side extension, first floor rear and side extensions and change of use of building from Public House and three bedroom flat to C3 Residential to create 4no two bedroom flats and 2no one bedroom flats (as amended by plans received November 2020).

Councillor Sean Prendergast declared an interest in that his mother-in-law owned a neighbouring property and advised that he would not take part in the debate or vote on this item.

RESOLVED: That application 20/01098/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 1 hour 53 minutes 03 seconds

Two storey side extension, first floor rear and side extensions and change of use of building from Public House and three bedroom flat to C3 Residential to create 4no two bedroom flats and 2no one bedroom flats (as amended by plans received November 2020).

Councillor Sean Prendergast declared an interest in that his mother-in-law owned a property in Pinnocks Lane which was at the back of the proposed development and advised that he would not take part in the debate or vote on this item.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/01098/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions of clarification:

·                Councillor Daniel Allen;

·                Councillor David Levett;

·                Councillor Mike Rice.

Points raised included:

·                The parking spaces provided would be challenging for larger vehicles to use due to the lack of space in the parking area shown in the plans.

In response to questions raised, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

·                Each car parking space had standard dimensions (approx. 4.8m x approx. 2.14m);

·                The Parking SPD dictated that a two bedroomed property would require two spaces and a one bedroomed property would require one space, so to meet the policy, the development would require 10 parking spaces but it only had 4;

·                As this was a sustainable location, a view could be taken on providing fewer spaces, in accordance with the Parking SPD;

·                More spaces had originally been included but Highways had requested that spaces only be provided that would allow vehicles to enter and exit in a forward gear.

Mr Doug Neath thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/01098/FP.

Mr Neath gave a verbal presentation including:

·                He was representing the residents who had complained;

·                They had no objection to the change of use but they objected to a number of serious issues, particularly the extension intended to be built on the existing beer garden;

·                There were insufficient parking spaces and new residents may try find alternative parking in Pinnocks Lane and Pinnocks Close, where parking was already very limited;

·                If the County Council’s proposal to introduce double yellow lines along part of these roads went ahead there would not be enough places for residents to park, and they too may have to resort to parking in the High Street causing even more congestion;

·                There were concerns over the impact of the proposed extension on the residents in Pinnocks Lane - the height of the proposed extension would greatly diminish the outlook of the properties and would drastically cut down the amount of sunlight reaching them. Some of the residents were keen gardeners who grew flowers and vegetables all year round, and this would seriously affect their ability to continue to do so;

·                The extension included three windows which were close to, and overlooked the neighbouring properties, therefore seriously affecting their right to privacy;

·                The proposed balcony was extremely close and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

There were no Planning Appeals.

Audio recording – 2 hours 40 minutes 6 seconds

There were no Planning Appeals to report on at the meeting.