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 by Councillors Val Bryant, Morgan Derbyshire and Ian Moody.

Having given due notice Councillor Nigel Mason substituted for Councillor Val Bryant and Councillor Michael Muir substituted for Councillor Morgan Derbyshire.

Audio recording – 0:52

Apologies for absence were received by Councillors Val Bryant, Morgan Derbyshire and Ian Moody.

Having given due notice Councillor Nigel Mason will be substituting for Councillor Val Bryant and Councillor Michael Muir will be substituting for Councillor Morgan Derbyshire.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 13 October 2022

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 13 October 2022 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair with the amendment that Councillor Michael Muir, Councillor Nigel Mason and Councillor Amy Allen are to be added to the list of Councillors present at the last meeting.

Audio recording – 1:21

It was noted by Councillor Michael Muir and Councillor Nigel Mason that they were present at the previous meeting but their names were not on the list of Councillors present.

Councillor Tom Tyson, as Chair, proposed and Councillor Daniel Allen seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 13 October 2022 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair with the amendment that Councillor Michael Muir, Councillor Nigel Mason and Councillor Amy Allen are to be added to the list of Councillors present at the last meeting.

.

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 – 3:00

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 there would be a comfort break if required

Audio recording – 3:02

(1)  The Chair welcomed those present at the meeting

(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 need to be declared immediately prior to the item in question.

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

(5)  The Chair advised that there would be a comfort break if required

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance:

• Parish Councillor Paul Harding
• Caroline McDonnell
• Hugh Chatfield
• Derek Carter
• Councillor Richard Thake
• Phil Roden
• Tim Lee
• Parish Councillor Neil Burns
• Nicky Tribble
• Peter Calver
• Councillor Lisa Nash

Audio recording – 4:53

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance:

·         Parish Councillor Paul Harding

·         Caroline McDonnell

·         Hugh Chatfield

·         Derek Carter

·         Councillor Richard Thake

·         Phil Roden

·         Tim Lee

·         Parish Councillor Neil Burns

·         Nicky Tribble

·         Peter Calver

·         Councillor Lisa Nash

RESOLVED: That the application 21/03380/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the removal of Condition 7, to be replaced with two further conditions. Therefore the current Condition 9 would become Condition 10, with the other Conditions included within the report changing number accordingly. The additional conditions were:

“Condition 7:

No development including ground works and ground preparation works shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme, based on suitable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including 1 in 100-year + climate change critical storm will not exceed run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event.  The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

The scheme shall also include:

1.  A detailed response to the Letter from the LLFA dated 15 November 2022 which addresses the points of concern with the proposed surface water drainage scheme and overland flow management scheme.
2. Carry out any necessary amendments to the proposed surface water drainage scheme and hydraulic modelling for the overland management scheme for LLFA approval.  Once the baseline information is agreed the following information should be provided;
3. Demonstrate an overall betterment of the existing pre-development overland flow paths for the 1 in 30-year event, ensuring the flow paths are maintained and not made worse for events above the 1 in 30-year event and up to the 1 in 100 year + climate change event.
4. Detailed engineered drawings of the proposed SuDS/flood risk mitigation features including their location, size, volume depth and any inlet and outlet features including any connecting pipe runs and all corresponding calculations/modelling to ensure the scheme caters for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year + 40% allowance for climate change event.
5. Detailed engineered drawings of all proposed discharge locations including headwall details, evidence of land ownership and relevant permissions.  A condition survey of these specific locations should also be provided and any mitigation required should be carried out prior to development taking place.
6. Demonstrate appropriate SuDS management and treatment and inclusion of above ground features.
7. Provision of half drain down times for surface water drainage features within 24 hours.
8. Silt traps for protection of any residual tanked elements where appropriate.
9. Construction phase surface water and flood mitigation management plan.
10. Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion including adoption of details.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both n and off site in particularly to Priory Lane and Little Wymondley.

Condition 8:

Upon completion of the surface water drainage/flood management works for the site in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements, the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:  ...  view the full decision text for item 26.

Audio recording – 5:33

Shaun Greaves presented the report and gave a verbal presentation, which included:

·         At 4.1.6 reference made to conduit heat at priory farm should read conduit head

·         At 4.6.24 reference made to appellant and this should read applicant

·         At 4.6.27 the year 2030 should read 2040

·         The North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 was adopted by full Council on the 8^th November. This report was written before the adoption and therefore there are references to the superseded Local Plan. There are references to this at paragraph 2.6, 4.5.4 and 4.5.42 of the report. References are made to policies of the Emerging Local Plan in the report and significant weight is given to these in the report. As the Local Plan is now adopted, these policies are now attributed full weight. The planning balance is not materially affected and the officer recommendation is unchanged. The previous policies referred to in the report are now replaced by policies of the new Local Plan.

·         The site is located within the green belt and references made to policy 2 of the superseded Local Plan is replaced by policy SP5 of the new Local Plan that refers to green belt. Therefore, where stated at paragraph 4.5.43 that the starting point for consideration of this application is policy 2, this is now policy SP5 of the new Local Plan

·         Councillor Levett has pointed out a page is missing from the glint and glare assessment on the Councils website. This is in a section addressing aviation considerations. The full document was available within our internal system. The document including the missing page is now available on the Councils website.

·         The submitted glint and glare assessment by Pager Power undertakes a high-level assessment. The nearest main airport is Luton Airport and is 11km to the south west of the application site. It is best practice to consider reflections towards pilots in the last two miles of final approach to the airport and the application site is well beyond that. In regards to air traffic control, close proximity to the aerodromes is a consideration. Given the distance involved, officers do not consider that this proposal would have significant impacts on aviation.

·         The glint and glare effects on highway users have been carefully considered by the highway authority who have raised no objections to the proposal.

·         With regards to drainage, we have received a late response from the lead local flood authority and the response and note has been circulated to Members. The LLFA are not raising an in principle objection to the proposal and whilst they have concerns relating to the proposed drainage strategy, these relate to matters that can be addressed and controlled by conditions. Therefore two additional conditions are proposed by the LLFA to replace condition 7 set out in the agenda

·         The officer recommendation remains that permission is resolved to be granted subject to referral to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities and conditions set out in the agenda  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

RESOLVED: That the application 22/00982/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager with an amendment to Condition 8 reading:

“Condition 8:

Prior to the commencement of the approved development, the following landscape details shall be submitted:

a)  which, if any, of the existing vegetation is to be removed and which is to be retained – including details of tree cutting

b)  what new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas are to be planted, together with the species proposed and the size and density of planting

c)  the location and type of any new walls, fences or other means of enclosure and any hardscaping proposed – hard surfaces shall be of porous materials, or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surfaces to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilages of the dwellings

d)  details of any earthworks proposed

e)  new tree planting to the west and east boundaries of the site, between the trees on the west boundary, and on the east garden boundaries of the approved dwellings.  These trees shall be of native species, with details to be provided as part of b) of this Condition.

Reason: To ensure the submitted details are sufficiently comprehensive to enable proper consideration to be given to the appearance of the completed development.”

Audio recording – 2:00:29

Andrew Hunter presented the report and gave a verbal presentation, which included:

·         An extension of time has been agreed to the 22^nd November

·         Paragraph 4.3.26 reports should have the number 34.39% amended to 38.95% to reflect the figure in the energy strategy statement on its last page

·         Following the adoption of the new Local Plan, the references to the 1996 previous Local Plan in the officer report have been removed and these changes are set out in an addendum to the officer committee report for this item and on the website.

·         The site is a previous dog kennels business behind the dwelling which is at the front

·         The business has now closed and the land has been cleared of most building structures and vegetation.

·         The oak tree car repair garage to the east is the only neighbour and the rest of the site is enclosed by agricultural fields.

·         There is a line of mature trees on the west boundary

·         The nearest dwelling is approx. 300m away to the west

·         The locality is a rural agricultural character and is in the green belt

·         The proposal is for the redevelopment and change of use of the site to residential, involving the clearance of building structures and vegetation and the erection of three detached 4-bedroom bungalows each with pitched roofs, parking for the dwellings and visitors. There will be soft landscaping and the existing access will be widened.

·         The existing site plan was before it had been cleared of the building structures

There were no questions from Members.

The Chair Neil Burns to speak against the application.

Neil Burns thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave presentation which included:

·         In the last three years there have been three planning applications granted by the Council. First in 2000 was the conversion of a single stable block to provide a 4-bedroom house. The second in 2021 was the erection of two 3-bedroom and one 4-bedroom dwellings which this application seeks to replace. Thirdly, last week the Council granted permission for the extension of the existing dwelling at the front of the site by 100m sq. to be subdivided into two 4-bedroom dwellings.

·         In 4.3.4 of the officers report which is inappropriate development, the application doesn’t meet either of the two tests of nppf149g. firstly the proposal is not contributing to identified affordable housing needs. Secondly the proposal has an impact on the openness of the green belt.

·         The proposed dwellings are now 4.7m in height, which is over twice the height of the existing buildings and significantly higher than that contained in the 2021 approved scheme. This increases the intrusion into the green belt

·         The current application seeks to relocate the dwellings 20m further the south away from the existing house and public road. This is a far greater visual intrusion into the green belt

·         The existing mature trees to the south east are removed in this scheme, reducing screening and increasing visual intrusion

·         In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

RESOLVED: That the application 22/01920/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager with an amendment to Condition 4 reading:

“Condition 4:

One replacement native semi-mature tree with a recommended girth of between 16-18cm must be planted in the front garden area of the property 14 Oakfields Avenue within 1 year of the date of this decision. Should the tree die within 5 years of it being planted, the tree must be replaced in the following planting season.

Reason: In the interest of local amenity.”

Audio recording – 2:31:21

Thomas Howe presented the report and gave a verbal presentation, which included:

·         Omit the report references saved policies and the emerging nature of the Local Plan. My recommendation still stands

·         There is an amendment to Condition 4 of Item 8 relating to the planting of a tree. There is some hoarding erected and some commencement of works related to extent permissions has occurred. It now should read “one replacement native semi-mature tree with a recommended girth of between 16-18cm must be planted in the front garden area of the property 14 Oakfields Avenue within one year of the date of this decision and should the tree die within five years of it being planted, the tree must be replaced in the following planting season”

·         Two applications are being considered at the same address so I will only introduce the site once

·         It is a detached bungalow to the north of Oakfields Avenue and is in a residential area of Knebworth

·         It isn’t listed or in the conservation area.

·         There is a tree that has now been felled

·         This application is looking to join up extant permissions with the emission of certain roof elements. A pitch has been erected to obscure and soften the flat roof.

·         The garage is retained and the rear extension with bifold doors is joining up to the garage.

·         The loss of the copper beech was strongly object to by neighbours and this tree was also considered to contribute to locality given its large size and pleasing crown. It was felled without being a breach of planning as it was not protected by a tree protection order and the site is not in a conservation area. A condition is attached to both applications requiring that a tree be planted in the front garden to replace the felled tree and contribute to the street scene.

The following Members asked questions:

·         Councillor Alistair Willoughby

In response Thomas Howe advised:

·         The Neighbourhood Plan does reference the design of the buildings. It is in traditional nature and is as expected for a dwelling of the size. It is my opinion but I believe it is the nature of the Neighbourhood Plan

The Chair invited Peter Calver to speak against the application.

Peter Calver thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave presentation which included:

·         The two applications should be considered together as they are effectively a single development to this plot.

·         It is surrounding a 1926 bungalow on all sides with flat roofed extensions is entirely out of character and sympathy with the existing building and surrounding properties

·         Oakfields Avenue should be considered as a character neighbourhood whose origins are from the inspired Knebworth Garden Village project from the early 20^th century.

·         An image of this property can be seen in the original prospectus for the Knebworth Garden Village project

·         The bungalow should be described as a building of special architectural interest and should be treated with respect

·         The proposed plans will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

RESOLVED: That the application 22/01920/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager

Audio recording – 3:10:15

Thomas Howe presented the report and gave a verbal presentation, which included:

·         The proposed extension is to the right side of the property and will have a flat roof

There were no questions from Members.

The Chair invited Peter Calver to speak against the application.

Peter Calver thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave presentation which included:

·         The objections are equally balanced for this application

·         The attaching of a flat roofed extension partly to the front side visible from the street, the character property is at odds with the original building and those surrounding it

·         It should be sympathetic to the buildings around it and in respect to the character of the neighbourhood

·         This application is designed to be part of the larger development so why wasn’t it included in the previous application.

·         The original bungalow doesn’t exist as the rear extension has been demolished and the building has been gutted

·         The applicant work started without consent

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair invited Councillor Lisa Nash to speak against the application as a Member advocate

Councillor Nash thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation which included:

·         Many residents were unaware

·         This application is contrary to the Knebworth Neighbourhood Plan

·         It will have a massive impact on the street scene as it is not in keeping with surrounding properties

·         It would have been better to have one complete plan that was sympathetic to the street scene and in line with policies.

·         The front of the property will be a lot further forward than neighbouring properties

·         It has a massive visual impact on neighbouring properties

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair invited Justin Reed to speak in favour of the application.

Justin Reed thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave presentation which included:

·         There is no established character along the street with properties varying in size and style.

·         This proposal will be a front extension to create a uniform appearance.

·         It is a relatively small addition and won’t harm the visual impact of the site

There were no points of clarification from Members

The Chair invited Thomas Howe to respond:

·         The setback nature of the dwelling and modest scale and visual impacts means it will not have a massive impact

The following Members took part in the debate:

·         Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·         Councillor Michael Muir

·         Councillor Simon Bloxham

·         Councillor Daniel Allen

·         Councillor David Levett

Points raised in the debate included:

·         We’ve just approved the visual of the building site so we can’t refuse this

·         It doesn’t say what type of tree should be planted, I think it should state it is a Beech tree as that is what was removed

·         We don’t need two trees, we already have one now that replaces the other one

·         If the tree is planted in the first condition and they build the second extension do they have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Tom Allington updated Members on Planning Appeals

RESOLVED: That the Committee note the report

Audio recording – 3:24:48

Tom Allington updated Members on Planning Appeals which included:

·         We have five appeal decisions to report back

·         The site at Croft Lane in Letchworth and this is now one of our allocated housing sites. This was recommended for approval by the officer and was overturned and refused by the Committee on the grounds that Croft Lane was too narrow for the levels of traffic.

·         The appeal was dismissed but the inspector found that the reason given by the Council was acceptable and the impact of the traffic would be an unacceptable level. It was dismissed because the obligations in the unilateral undertaking had not been fully justified and therefore had not been found to be fully compliant.

·         There are four other appeal decisions but they are not hugely noteworthy but I am happy to take questions

REASON FOR DECISION: To keep the Planning Committee apprised of planning appeals lodged and planning appeal decisions.