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, Alistair Willoughby and Ian Moody.

Audio recording – 1 minutes 14 seconds

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Val Bryant, Alistair Willoughby and Ian Moody.

Having given due notice Councillor Alistair Willoughby was substituted by Councillor Nigel Mason.

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

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

Audio Recording – 1 minutes 45 seconds

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 20 September 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 35 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 paid tribute to Cllr Judi Billing MBE who passed away on the 24 November and requested Members and members of the public join in a minute’s silence in remembrance.

(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 the speaking process for public participants.

(5)       The Chair advised of when comfort breaks would be taken.

Audio recording – 2 minutes 42 seconds

(1)       The Chair paid tribute to Councillor Judi Billing MBE, following her death on 24 November 2022 and held a minute’s silence in her memory.

(2)       The Chair advised that, in accordance with Council Policy, the meeting would be 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 the speaking procedure for the members of the public in attendance.

(5)       The Chair advised of when comfort breaks would be taken.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed the registered speakers were in attendance.

Audio recording – 5 minutes 25 seconds

The Chair confirmed that the 10 registered public speakers and 5 Member Advocates were in attendance.

RESOLVED: That application 18/01502/OP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with an amendment to Condition 9 to read:

“Prior to the commencement of development, a development and infrastructure phasing plan is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA  which must be agreed with the Local Authority in consultation with Thames Water.  This plan is to set out the measures / works required to ensure that the local infrastructure has the capacity to serve the development and to allow the development to be occupied.  Where a development and infrastructure phasing plan is agreed no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed development and infrastructure phasing plan.

Reason: Sewage Treatment Upgrades are likely to be required to accommodate the proposed development. Any upgrade works identified will be necessary in order to avoid sewage flooding and/or potential pollution incidents.”

Audio recording – 6 minutes 18 seconds

The Acting Development and Conservation Manager advised of the following updates:

·         Three late letters had been received and circulated to Members ahead of the meeting.

·         HCC Growth and Infrastructure Team had requested that monitoring fees be included as well as the Section 106 contributions, following a change in their guidance. They had also requested that the fire hydrants be included as a condition for this application, and this now formed Condition 25.

·         Councillor Hill maintained her objection to the application.

·         Barkway Parish Council had continued their objection to the application. The response from the Planning Officer to the Parish Council regarding their additional conditions proposed had been published and the Planning Officer had offered support to three of these additional proposals.

Councillor Tony Hunter advised that due to comments made during the Local Plan process he was predetermined on this item and would therefore speak as a Member Advocate before leaving the Chamber for the remainder of the item.

The Acting Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 18/01502/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

(At this point of the meeting Councillor Phil Weeder entered the Chamber at 19.48)

The Chair invited Ms Jacqueline Veater and Ms Aimee Cannon to speak against the item.

Ms Veater thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

·         Objections to the development had come from all areas.

·         The new development of housing will remain remote from the village in the near future.

·         The Parish Council would support the District Council if the application was refused permission.

·         The village was at risk of becoming nothing more than a housing estate, with limited employment opportunities.

·         The 140 homes proposed would make a minimal contribution to the housing supply in the district.

·         There were amendments to the Levelling Up Bill which aimed to commit developers to offset pollution caused to environments, but the phased sewage plant scheme for this development is not enough to protect the River Quinn.

·         Requested that the sewage plant condition be amended to require an upgrade to the sewage plant before commencement of the development.

·         Requested additional wording to Condition 19 to ease parking and traffic congestion around the site.

·         Further exploration of the proposed shop is required.

·         The application should be refused as an inappropriate and unsustainable development.

Ms Cannon thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

·         Newsells Park Stud farm remain of the view that this development is not suitable, but request measures are put in place to mitigate against harm if permission is granted.

·         The parameters needed setting at this stage of the application.

·         No noise assessment has been made as part of the application and an acoustic fence should be required around the boundaries of the site and this should be in place before development

·         There should be no development until the mature landscaping around  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

RESOLVED: That application 22/00927/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 49 minutes 30 seconds

The Acting Development and Conservation Manager advised of the following updates:

·         There were two applications for this site but the updates would be provided for both, with votes taking place separately.

·         A group of objections had been received from nearby schools raising safeguarding concerns with regard to these applications.

·         An objection had been received from a neighbouring business.

·         A group of residents had submitted an objection.

·         A statement from the YMCA had been provided in support of the application.

·         A detailed response from the Police Liaison Officer had been received and it detailed that although anti-social behaviour had increased in the town from October 2019 to September 2022, this could not be attributed to 20 High Street.

·         Most issues raised in these late representations had been addressed within the report.

·         There were no safeguarding concerns raised by consultees.

·         There was no reference to the loss of commercial floorspace in the report, but this application is for a temporary change of use and therefore not relevant in this circumstance.

·         The Local Plan does contain provision for the support of homeless people.

The Acting Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 22/00927/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Chair invited Ms Karan Bugler to speak against the item.

Ms Bugler thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

·         The residents believe that the report is flawed and their objections had been submitted in response to this.

·         It is clear than only offences within the building itself have been referenced, when there are wider issues across the town.

·         A Freedom of Information request had been made, but a response had not yet been received. In the interim residents had compiled a list of incidents with Police Crime Reference Numbers, with 24 occurrences happening in a 3 month period over summer 2022 all involving residents of 20 High Street.

·         There was no police station in Baldock.

·         A stabbing had taken place in Stevenage recently and it had been confirmed that the perpetrator was resident at 20 High Street, Baldock.

·         The decision should be deferred to allow for time to receive an accurate police report.

·         In the report it is detailed by the Police Liaison Officer acknowledges that a high number of the residents are and will be drug users and suggested that this would increase the likeliness of drug dealers in the area.

·         The report proposes mitigations to protect residents, but not to protect the vulnerable residents in the community.

·         The proximity to local schools, and the position of the site along a key walkway to these, has not been considered in the report. Headteachers from the schools had provided a submission detailing safeguarding concerns.

·         Should the extension be granted, Baldock would have more beds to support homeless people than Stevenage, which was a bigger town. Baldock had limited employment opportunities and sporadic access to public transport and therefore  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

RESOLVED: That application 22/01498/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 103 minutes 23 seconds

The Chair advised that the Acting Development and Conservation Manager would not be providing a further update on this second application for 20 High Street, Baldock, as all updates had been provided alongside the first application.

The Chair invited Ms Bugler to provide further comments against this second application and Ms Bugler noted that the incidents referred to in the Police statistics is only incidents within the building, whereas residents were referring to incidents happening in the wider environment.

The Chair invited Councillor Michael Muir to speak against the second application as Member Advocate. Councillor Muir advised:

·         He agreed with all points raised by Councillor Weeks with regard to the first application.

·         The strength of feeling was evident from public attendees at the meeting.

·         Detailed incidents which he had witnessed at the site.

The Chair advised Councillor Muir that anecdotal evidence was not suitable at the Planning Control Committee meeting.

The Chair invited Mr Courtney-Morgan to speak in support of the second application, and Mr Courtney-Morgan advised that he had no further comments.

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed and Councillor Nigel Mason seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 22/01498/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Following the conclusion of this item there was a short comfort break in proceedings until 21.32.

RESOLVED: That application 22/00170/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 Legal Agreement and the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the following amendments:

·         Removal of Condition 21 as detailed in the report.

·         Condition 22 and Condition 23 to become Condition 21 and Condition 22 respectively.

·         Additional Conditions 23 and 24 to read:

“Condition 23

The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the following documents:

·         E-mail response dated 23 August 2022 from Nolan Associates

·         E-mail response dated 28 October 2022 from Nolan Associates

·         Drainage Strategy carried out by Nolan Associates dated March 2022 reference 2021- 087

·         CCTV and Connectivity Survey dated 9 May 2022 carried out by Wrc

·         Manhole Survey Report dated 27 May 2022 carried out by Wrc

and the following mitigation measures:

1.    Provide minimum surface water attenuation volume of 27m3 to ensure no increase in surface water run-off volumes for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year + climate change (40%) event.

2.    Implement drainage strategy based on a tank and permeable paving for attenuation and treatment at a discharge rate of 2l/s into an existing surface water sewer (final details to be confirmed as part of a post demolition condition).

3.    Provide water quality treatment using permeable paving on 10 parking bays where all the impermeable areas including the access road will be directed to the permeable paving for treatment prior to discharge.

Reason To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site.

Condition 24

No development shall take place, apart from the demolition of the current building, until the final design of the drainage scheme is completed and is approved by the LPA. The surface water drainage system will be based on the following approved documentation:

·         E-mail response dated 23 August 2022 from Nolan Associates

·         E-mail response dated 28 October 2022 from Nolan Associates

·         Drainage Strategy carried out by Nolan Associates dated March 2022 reference 2021- 087

·         CCTV and Connectivity Survey dated 9 May 2022 carried out by Wrc

·         Manhole Survey Report dated 27 May 2022 carried out by Wrc

The scheme shall also include:

1.    Post demolition survey of the existing drainage system to confirm the existing connection into a sewer. Should the survey determine the connection is into an existing combined sewer, the applicant will need to demonstrate that they have considered other options where possible to connect into another surface water sewer.

2.    Permission from Anglian Water to connect into their sewer including any required sewer upgrades due to capacity issues at the agreed rate of 2l/s.

3.    Detailed engineered drawings of the proposed SuDS 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  ...  view the full decision text for item 39.

Audio recording – 117 minutes 52 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer advised of the following updates:

·         Two additional responses had been received, one from HCC Growth and Infrastructure Unit and one from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), and these had been added as addenda to the report.

·         The applicant has agreed in principle to the S106 conditions proposed by Herts County Council subject to legal agreement.

·         The LFFA had proposed two further conditions to replace Condition 21 in the report.

·         No response had been received from HCC Ecology Unit, but a satisfactory response would be required before issuing a Decision Notice.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/02796/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

In response to a question from Councillor Daniel Allen, the Senior Planning Officer advised access to the retail units would be via the three service doors at the rear of the site, and this is where deliveries would be made. There have been no concerns raised by Highways in terms of deliveries to this area.

The Chair invited Dr Georgina Porter and Mr Toby Shelley to speak against the item.

Mr Shelley thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

·         They did not object to the proposals in principle and support a number of the proposals but believe there are two planning issues which need addressing.

·         The first was drainage and this area was already prone to flooding, with Walsworth Road flooded every time it rains and the railway bridge is almost continually flooded during heavy rain.

·         There was a recent example where drain covers were popping out due to volume of water in one street nearby.

·         Due to climate change, rain is becoming more sporadic and more intense.

·         The sewage system in the area is ancient and it is clear that neither the issue of ground water or sewage had been resolved by the relevant agencies. Given the talks had been ongoing for over a year, it demonstrated the complexities of the issues involved.

·         The issue of drainage should be addressed and should show that it is durable, with clear responsibility allocated for when issues occur.

·         They request deferral of the application until the drainage issue can be resolved.

Dr Porter thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

·         There was a mains leak in Walsworth Road recently, with traffic control measures put in place to conduct repair works, and this had a huge impact on traffic. This is a key road in the town and wider district, and is the main access to the train station.

·         They had objected to the original plans due to their overbearing on neighbours. There have been some changes to the plan and there is no longer a fourth storey, but the roof height has not been reduced and the steep pitch is to remain.

·         The social housing behind the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

RESOLVED: That application 22/01990/PNAA be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 142 minutes 08 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer advised of the following updates:

·         An extension of time had been agreed until the 5 December 2022.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/01990/PNAA supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

Councillor Simon Bloxham declared that he knew the applicant personally. He was advised by the Legal Advisor that whilst this was not a DPI, this was a declarable interest and he should remove himself from this item.

In response to a question from Councillor David Levett, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the proposal was similar in height to neighbouring properties. The roof height of this property would be 8.48 metres, where number 36 is approximately 8.3 metres and numbers 45 and 43 were approximately 8.5 metres in height.

In response to a question from the Chair, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the roof height was partially determined by the requirement for it to be the same pitch as the roof of the existing dwelling.

The Chair invited Ms Diane Burleigh to speak against the item.

Ms Burleigh thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

·         She was speaking on behalf of Pirton Parish Council who felt that the height would adversely affect this section of the Lane.

·         While the height of the roof has been reduced and it would no longer be the tallest, it would still be one of the tallest.

·         The differing heights of the dwellings on Royal Oak Lane is part of its charm.

·         28 to 34 Royal Oak Lane are from a similar date and are sat back from the road, but the property would not be hidden from public view all year round.

·         Number 34 is clearly part of a distinct group of hoses and changing one would be out of character with the other dwellings in the group.

·         The property is most comparable to 28, 30 and 32, not number 36 and these neighbouring properties to which is compares would have grounds to claim the proposals would have an adverse impact on their homes.

·         The impact on amenity is not limited to overlooking, privacy or loss of light and the impact the height would have on number 32 would mean these was an impact on amenity.

·         Should approval be granted, there should be two further conditions included, one to ensure the first floor is in the same brick as other bungalows and an Article 4 direction placed on future developments into the roof space.

There were no points of clarification from Members and the Chair thanked Ms Burleigh for her presentation.

The Chair invited Councillor Claire Strong to speak against the item, as Member Advocate.

Councillor Strong thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

·         Due to the unusual nature of the application, she felt it was worthwhile calling this into the Committee to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.