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 Sean Nolan, Daniel Allen and Terry Tyler.

Having given due notice Councillor Amy Allen substituted for Councillor Daniel Allen and Councillor Nigel Mason substituted for Councillor Sean Nolan.

Audio recording – 1 minute 00 seconds

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sean Nolan, Daniel Allen and Terry Tyler.

Having given due notice Amy Allen substituted for Councillor Daniel Allen and Councillor Nigel Mason substituted for Councillor Sean Nolan.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 20^th April 2022.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 20 April 2022 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

Audio Recording – 1 minute 23 seconds

Councillor Val Bryant, as Chair, proposed and Councillor David Levett seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 20 April 2022 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 – 2 minutes 03 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 advised that, in accordance with Council Policy, the meeting would be audio recorded.

(2)  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.

(3)  The Chair gave advice to the registered speakers on the speaking procedure and time limits.

(4)  The Chair advised that a break would be taken around 9pm, if required.

(5)  The Chair advised that there had been a change to the order of the agenda and Item 7 and 8 would be taken ahead of Item 6, which would be taken following the conclusion of Item 8.

Audio recording – 2 minutes 08 seconds

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

(2)  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.

(3)  The Chair gave advice to the registered speakers on the speaking procedure and time limits.

(4)  The Chair advised that a break would be taken around 9pm, if required.

(5)  The Chair advised that there had been a change to the order of the agenda and Item 7 and 8 would be taken ahead of Item 6, which would be taken following the conclusion of Item 8.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

Audio recording – 3 minutes 25 seconds

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

RESOLVED: That application 22/01342/TD be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 90 minutes 45 seconds

N.B – The Chair allowed a short break following the completion of Agenda Item 8.

The Planning Officer advised that 11 objections had been received in total and that further documentation received from the applicant had been shared with Members ahead of the meeting.

The Planning Officer read a written statement from Councillor Chris Hinchliff, as ward Member, who was unable to attend due to a positive Covid test. This statement included:

·         The responses submitted to the application show that there is strong local opposition to the proposals from residents and the Town Council.

·         This is not an attempt to challenge the planning policies, but rather to draw to attention that this new mast infrastructure will not improve the coverage in or benefit the area, where it is generally already good.

·         The proposed mast would be taller than the existing street furniture, but also the roof lines of local residences, and will therefore be visible from these.

·         The prosed introduction of the industrial mast to a predominantly residential area would affect residents quiet enjoyment.

·         The proposals are off a narrow part of Melbourn road and would impose onto the footpath. There would consequently be a negative visual impact on this area of Royston, as outlined in comments from residents and those of the Town Council.

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/01342/TD supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions:

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

·         Councillor Morgan Derbyshire

·         Councillor David Levett

·         Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·         Councillor Amy Allen

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised:

·         The description on the application is for 15metres and the plans detail this, unsure why the 20metre pole is shown on the slides.

·         They were unaware how far the site was from the nearest school site.

·         This proposal is for a new installation.

·         Non-Iodising Radiation protection has to be taken into account regarding schools nearby, but there are not further requirements than this for planning considerations and it does not apply to private residencies with children.

The Chair invited Mr Chris Lobb to speak against the application.

Mr Lobb thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation, including:

·         He was a resident of a nearby property and spoke on behalf of other residents.

·         Improving connectivity was important for businesses and individuals.

·         Taking into account sustainable development, it was important that changes were made to improve the future, it should not compromise the present.

·         The small estate has already had additions and developments, including new housing and a bus stop.

·         The nature of the mast will not be suitable for the area and will be an eyesore and will impact those living locally as it will rise above the treeline and no clever design will disguise this.

·         Further developments to the mast, such as installation of CCTV cameras, would impact further on the privacy of local residents.

·         No parking facilities on the A10  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

RESOLVED: That application 22/00170/FP be DEFERRED to receive a response from Highways regarding the installation of a gate and to request further details from the Police regarding anti-social behaviour in the area.

Audio recording – 4 minutes 25 seconds

The Conservation and Development Manager advised Members of the following corrections to the report:

·         Paragraph 4.1.1 should read 21 self-contained bedrooms, not 24 as written.

·         Paragraph 4.2.2 should read ‘managers and staff accommodation is within the existing building.

The Conservation and Development Manager presented the report in respect of application 22/00170/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

Councillor David Levett advised that as Chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, he had requested a Call To Account of relevant Members and Officers involved in decisions around Lord Lister Hotel and therefore he would not take part in the debate or vote on this item or Agenda Item 8, but would remain to hear the debate.

The following Members asked questions:

·         Councillor Nigel Mason

·         Councillor Amy Allen

·         Councillor Tony Hunter

In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised:

·         If the conditions in the report are not applied then Breach of Condition Notices can be issued by the Council, where it seems no action is being taken by the applicant.

·         It was not the duty of the Development and Conservation Manager to answer for plans within the building.

·         The other application included within the report was not entirely comparable, but demonstrated the considerations that the Planning Inspector had applied to this application and that decisions had to be made around Planning Concerns. There were other bodies responsible for other aspects of the development.

The Conservation Officer advised that having visited the site recently that was a large meeting room which in reality appeared to be a break out area for residents, with soft furnishings. There would need to be further clarification from the applicant or their representative as to whether this was the plan.

The Chair advised Members of the details of the Call to Account to be undertaken by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 

The Chair invited Mr Scot Moir to speak against the application and advised he had been allocated 10 minutes.

Mr Moir thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation, including:

·         He was speaking as a neighbouring resident to the property and was speaking on behalf of his friends, family and the local community.

·         The property had been run as outlined in the proposals since 2021 and therefore residents have a clear idea of how it functions.

·         These were not self-contained units, and the 21 residents would have to have access to shared kitchen and laundry facilities.

·         Typically when the building was used as a hotel, the patrons would stay for a short period of time and would spend little time in the room. This would not be the case under the proposals.

·         The installation of a gate on the front arched entrance will have an impact on the highways and vehicles will now have to breach the pavement for access.

·         Since the change of use has taken place the police and emergency services have been called out and,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

RESOLVED: That application 22/00171/LBC be DEFERRED to receive a response from Highways regarding the installation of a gate and to request further details from the Police regarding anti-social behaviour in the area.

Audio recording – 77 minutes 23 seconds

Following the deferral of Agenda Item 7 22/00170/FP, Councillor Tony Hunter proposed and Councillor Morgan Derbyshire seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 22/00171/LBC be DEFERRED to receive a response from Highways regarding the installation of a gate and to request further details from the Police regarding anti-social behaviour in the area.

RESOLVED: That application 19/01106/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following additional conditions:

“Condition 25

Prior to any demolition and construction works full details of a Demolition and Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: In order to ensure that adequate measures are adopted to control nuisance during works associated with the development from the spread of pollution, notably dust and fine particulate matter.

Condition 26

Prior to the occupation of the development a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation     

Condition 27

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended no development as set out in Class E 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.”

Audio recording – 123 minutes 13 seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager advised Members that Matthew Armstrong Highways Area Manager (North & East) from Herts County Council was available via Zoom to answer questions and provided the following updates:

·         Comments had been received from Ickleford Parish Council.

·         Further comments had been received from the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust.

·         Highways had clarified that on carriageway bus stops were safer than off carriageway, given the priority of buses.

·         There would be funds allocated to make a biodiversity net gain off site.

·         Some of the Section 106 funds had been changed, following the net reduction of one house in the proposals.

·         Due to the site being situated on currently allocated Green Belt land, this application would need to be referred to the Secretary of State if approved.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 19/01106/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions:

·         Councillor David Levett

·         Councillor Nigel Mason

In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised:

·         The applicant was Cala Homes.

·         For affordable rental properties, this would equate to 80% of the market value rent and 40% of this development would be in that category.

The Chair invited Ms Jill Saunders and Mr Phillip Crowe to speak against the application.

Ms Saunders thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation, including:

·         Objections from local residents had been set out in writing and a challenge to the legality of the site selection had been made and was awaiting a response from the Planning Inspector.

·         The review which downgraded the relevance of the site to the green belt failed to offer justification or rationale for doing so.

·         A strategic master plan was required for Ickleford due to the number of proposed developments.

·         If the proposals are approved then, as a minimum, the conditions in the report need to be enforced.

·         Full protection, with additional planting, of trees should be included within the proposals.

·         It was good to see the inclusion of a light controlled crossing over the busy road in the proposals and requested the footpath be extended.

Mr Crowe thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation, including:

·         Ickleford Parish Council has continued to object to the plans, which will be built on green belt land and will be built before the return of the Local Plan from the Inspector.

·         Requested that all sewage will flow south towards Hitchin, not north into the older sewers which were already under strain.

·         Given the new national plans to protect chalk streams, it was not suitable to propose that all surface water will run into the River Oughton.

·         The siting of the pelican crossing proposed should be moved south, alongside the new bus stop, which would be of more use to residents and children using the bus stop.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Alistair  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Upgrade of existing pumping station to provide nitrate removal plant and equipment including change of use of land for operational purposes and all associated works.

RESOLVED: That application 21/02768/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, including an amendment to Condition 13 and the addition of Condition 14 as follows:

“Condition 13

Prior to commencement, a single method statement for the clearance of vegetation should be submitted to the LPA for consideration. This should incorporate the key considerations outlined in the mitigation measures for the safeguarding of hedgehogs, nesting birds and reptiles in sections 6.3. 6.4 and 6.5 of the Ecological Impact Assessment by SLR Consulting Limited (Ref: 402.06511.00007 Version No:2),  including those relating to the time of year.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation     

Condition 14

Prior to the commencement of the development a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved Plan.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.”

Audio recording – 178 minutes 58 seconds

N.B. The Chair allowed a short break following the conclusion of Agenda Item 9.

The Planning Officer advised Members that Herts Ecology had provided their response and this had been shared with Members ahead of the meeting, but in summary no objections had been made.

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 21/02768/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Chair invited Mr Alistair Gammell to speak against the application.

Mr Gammell thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation, including:

·         As a keen conservationist and trout fisherman, he was interested in the conservation of chalk streams.

·         Oughtonhead Common was the largest area of its type within Hertfordshire and was a well-used and much-loved site within the local community and is a local nature reserve, with priority habitat sites.

·         Herts Ecology noted that without any evidence to the contrary, it is appropriate to be concerns about the possible negative impacts of the decisions on the wetlands and other wildlife habitats.

·         All evidence suggests that there may be negative ecological effects on site and no consultees have suggested evidence that there will not be.

·         Sites should enhance existing habitats and minimise impact from developments, with mitigations applied where appropriate.

·         There is no evidence in the report that there will be a net biodiversity gain, given the losses expected to Oughtonhead Local Nature Reserve.

There were no points of clarification for Mr Gammell from Members and the Chair thanked him for his presentation.

The Chair invited Councillor Sam North to speak against the application as Member Advocate.

Councillor North thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and advised of the following:

·         The development is proposing to extract high levels of water adjacent to this important natural habitat and recently the common has run dry, causing concern amongst local residents and users of the common.

·         Only 200 chalk stream worldwide and 85% are found in England and are very rare habitats, supporting life both in and around the water.

·         Due to the Climate Emergency declared by the Council this application should be rejected as this proposed water extraction will have an impact on the nature reserve and the special habitat it offers wildlife.

·         The proposals transfer the water resilience in the area and would push the problem to another area in the district.

·         These proposals, as noted in the report, would have an adverse impact on the green belt and further demonstrate reasons for refusal.

There were no points of clarification for Councillor North from Members and the Chair thanked him for his presentation.

The Chair invited Dr Ilias Karapanos and Ms Rebecca Lock, as the applicant and applicant’s representative, to speak in support of the application.

Ms Lock thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and advised of the following:

·         This site is important part of Affinity Water strategic plans, agreed with the Environment Agency  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

RESOLVED: That application 22/00346/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 224 minutes 40 seconds

The Planning Officer advised Members that the statutory deadline for this application had been extended until the 24 June 2022. There had been documents circulated by the applicant to Members this week and the Planning Officer would clarify these at a later stage.

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/00346/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

Councillor Tom Tyson advised the Committee that he had called in this application and the reasons for his call in were detailed in the report. He was not an advocate for this application either way and, whilst he had communication prior to the meeting with the applicant this was limited to procedural advice, he was not predetermined on this and would stay for the debate and vote.

The Chair invited Mr David Cook to speak in support of the application, as the applicant’s representative.

Mr Cook thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation, supported by a map, including:

·         Contextualised the plot in relation to the 2008 Newnham Conservation Area map.

·         Highlighted a previous application which had been allowed for a terrace of 4 houses on The Green, in spite of it being closer to Caldecote Road, as well as wider and taller than this proposal.

·         The land is in domestic usage and Class E development rights exist within this plot, there is just an absence of built form on the plot at the moment.

·         The existing outbuilding within the curtilage of Cherry Holt is large and ugly to the street scheme and it was previously suggested that removing the old building and replacing this would be suitable and of benefit to the conservation area.

There were no points of clarification for Mr Cook from Members and the Chair thanked him for his presentation.

The Chair invited the Planning Officer to respond to points raised during the public presentation, who advised:

·         The 2008 map of Newnham Conservation Area has two distinct roads, Ashwell Road and Caldecote Road, with different densities.

·         The setting of Cherry Holt is not listed, but the Conservation Officer can consider the setting of this building together with assessing the impact of the development upon other Designated Heritage Assets.

·         The location of the proposed dwelling is not in keeping with the height or built nature of the surrounding sites, as well as the spacing between sites.

·         A previous application on The Green was granted permission, where the Conservation Officer advised that a terrace would complete the crescent and this is currently being undertaken. This application is not comparable.

·         Under Class E permitted development within a conservation area, a building located to the side of an existing dwelling, as is the case here, cannot sit forwards of the rear elevation of no. 2 Caldecote Road without requiring planning permission. 

·         In-fill development in Newnham is allowed, but this site with within the conservation area and these proposals would do harm to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

RESOLVED:

(1)  That application 21/03533/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the completion of the S106 agreement and deed of variation, the applicant agreeing to any necessary extensions to the statutory determination period to achieve this and to request additional comments from the Lead Local Flood Authority and to add any condition(s) they request before the grant of planning permission.

(2)  Independently to the grant of planning permission for the Council to investigate whether a group Tree Preservation Order (TPO) should be served on the trees outside the application site immediately to the south to secure their long term protection following an assessment of the state and condition of the trees.

Audio recording – 248 minutes 20 seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager advised Members of the following updates to the report:

·        A late representation was submitted regarding the report and the author was advised to circulate these to Members directly.

·        The trees to the south of the site are not within the site boundary and so cannot be conditioned as such.

·        There were three options available to Members; to rely on the existing legal agreements in place, to require new screen planting along the southern part of the site to replace any lost trees or the Council could impose a group tree protection order, which can be imposed outside of planning permission on the site.

In response to a question, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that there was no known threat to the trees to the south of the site, this was meant to provide Members with potential options they could take if they felt appropriate.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 21/03533/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Chair invited Ms Lynn Bogie to speak against the application.

Ms Bogie thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation, including:

·        Previous applications have been made on this site, all of which have been rejected or withdrawn following consultation.

·        The previous application was not supported by the Planning Officer and was subsequently rejected by the Committee.

·        This application now has support from the Planning Officer, but nothing regarding the site has changed. There is no easy access to the site and it is situated away from local amenities.

·        The only change is that the application is now for 3 larger houses, as opposed to the 6 smaller dwellings previously proposed.

·        Previous application had been refused to the inadequacy of the flood risk assessment and no further evidence has been provided by the applicant for this application.

·        Although the LLFA is not a statutory consultee, they wrote to the Development and Conservation Manager to outline that they had not removed their objection.

·        The pollution risk assessment is incomplete and has not considered recent developments, but rather takes into account information and evidence which is now a further two years out of date from the previous application.

There were no points of clarification for Ms Bogie from Members and the Chair thanked him for his presentation.

The Chair invited Mr Michael Calder, as the applicant and applicant’s representative, to speak in support of the application.

Mr Calder thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and advised of the following:

·        This application has come following the rejection of a previous scheme and has seen the number of houses on the site reduced.

·        Officers have provided their detailed reports into the application and there had been no objections received from statutory consultees.

·        The proposals allow for a new opportunity on the site, which currently has no value to the countryside, has a history  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that, due to the time, he would not provide Members with a verbal update on this item.

Audio recording – 274 minutes 20 seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that, due to the time, he would not provide Members with a verbal update on this item.