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 Simon Bloxham and Daniel Allen.

Having given due notice, Councillor Michael Muir substituted for Councillor Simon Bloxham and Councillor Dave Winstanley substituted for Councillor Daniel Allen.

Audio recording – 2 minute 15 seconds

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Simon Bloxham and Daniel Allen.

Having given due notice, Councillor Michael Muir substituted for Councillor Simon Bloxham and Councillor Dave Winstanley substituted for Councillor Daniel Allen.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 6 July 2023, 11 July 2023 and 27 July 2023.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 6 July 2023, 11 July 2023 and 27 July 2023 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

Audio Recording – 2 minute 45 seconds

Councillor Val Bryant, as Chair, proposed and Councillor Mick Debenham seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meetings of the Committee held on 6 July 2023, 11 July 2023 and 27 July 2023 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

Members should notify the Chair of other business which they wish to be discussed at the end of either Part I or Part II business set out in the agenda. They must state the circumstances which they consider justify the business being considered as a matter of urgency.

The Chair will decide whether any item(s) raised will be considered.

There was no other business notified.

Audio recording – 3 minute 41 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 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 clarified 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.

The Chair advised that for item 7, the speaking time had been increased to 10 minutes per group.

(4)   The Chair advised that Section4.8.23(a) of the Constitution applied to the meeting.

(5)   The Chair advised that Item 8 on the agenda had been deferred to a later meeting, as the Planning Officer is waiting on a response from the Environmental Health consultee and to allow time to review comments received relating to Air Quality.

Audio recording – 3 minute 45 seconds

(1)   The Chair advised that, in accordance with Council Policy, the meeting would be 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 clarified matters for the registered speakers and advised that 10 minutes had been allowed for each group on Agenda item 7.

(4)   The Chair advised that Section4.8.23(a) of the Constitution applied to the meeting.

(5)   The Chair advised that Item 8 on the agenda had been deferred to a later meeting, as the Planning Officer is waiting on a response from the Environmental Health consultee and to allow time to review comments received relating to Air Quality.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

Audio recording – 5 minute 31 seconds

The Chair confirmed the registered speakers were in attendance.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER.

RESOLVED: That application 23/00666/FP be REFUSED planning permission due to the reasons outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording - 6 minute 43 seconds

The Chair advised that Councillor Tyson was to speak as a Member Advocate against this item and would therefore move to the public gallery and not take part in the debate or vote.

N.B Councillor Tom Tyson moved to the public gallery at 19:42

The Area Planning Officer provided an update from Ashwell Parish Council, who had noted, that:

·       They agreed with the Planning Officers recommendation to refuse planning permission in this application.

·       Should the application be approved, or the matter was overturned at appeal stage, Ashwell Parish Council would request a £22K payment towards the Ashwell Pavilion Project, the applicant had agreed to this payment.

The Area Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 23/00666/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Chair invited Mr Clive Self and Mr Harry Jenkinson to speak against the application.

Mr Self thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       The application site was not an allocated site, and was located just outside of Ashwell, part of the site falls within a conservation area.

·       The application site was bordered by two listed buildings and was on open countryside and sheep meadows.

·       The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required that applications were of a high quality design and respected the setting of listed buildings and conservation areas.

·       The generic cul de sac application did not respect the character of Ashwell with the site lying perpendicular to the main roads.

·       The proposed site would prevent the public view of open countryside and falls within a conservation area.

·       The application cannot be described as an infill development as it extends further north than the nearest properties.

·       The loss of countryside would cause harm to the conservation area and the nearby listed buildings.

·       The application was of poor quality and design, and there were concerns regarding the flood level.

·       The Parish Council agreed with the report of the Planning Officer and that this application would cause irreparable harm to the assets of Ashwell.

Mr Jenkinson thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·       The application would cause harm to the area and had a holding objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) regarding flood risks.

·       There was no agreed s106 money.

·       The application would cause damage to the village and the open countryside.

·       There were 165 detailed objections from resident to this application.

·       The development was neither sustainable, affordable, or practical.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair thanked Mr Self and Mr Jenkinson for their presentations and invited Councillor Tom Tyson to speak against the application. Councillor Tyson thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       This planning application was the least policy compliant application that he had ever seen.

·       The site of the application was outside the settlement boundary of Ashwell.

·       The application was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER.

Ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) farm including battery energy storage; continued agricultural use, ancillary infrastructure, security fencing,  landscaping provision, ecological  enhancements and associated works (as amended ). 

RESOLVED: That application 22/00741/FP be DEFERRED planning permission for the following reasons:

1.     For officers to advise upon and for Members to consider late submissions relating to biodiversity.

2.     For officers to advise upon and Members to consider late submissions relating to the effect of the proposal upon traffic and access.

3.     Members would like to visit a comparable and operating solar farm to understand likely noise impacts arising from the proposal.

4.     For officers to advise upon and for Members to considerproposed conditions by Bygrave Parish Council.   

5.     Members are minded to await the decision of the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities as to whether or not will be calling-in the application for his determination before making a decision on the application.

Audio Recording: 22 minute and 8 second

N.B Councillor Tom Tyson returned to the Council Chamber at 19:53

Councillor Tom Tyson announced to the Chair that he had a Non-Registerable Interest, and an Other Registerable Interest in this item and would not take part in the debate or vote and would leave the Chamber for the duration of the item.

N.B Councillor Tom Tyson left the Council Chamber at 19:54

The Chair read an email received from the Secretary of State regarding application 22/00741/FP which stated that:

·       Under Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Secretary of State hereby directed the Council not to grant permission on thisapplication without specific authorisation.

·       This direction was issued to enable the Secretary of State to consider whether they should direct under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that this application should be referred to the Secretary of State fordetermination.

·       This direction did not, of course, prevent the Committee from considering the application, forming a view as to its merits or, refusing permission.

·       This letter was for proceduralpurposes and should not be taken as any indication of the attitude of the Secretary of State towards this application.

The Chair advised that the application could still be considered.

The Development and Conservation Manager stated that the email from the Secretary of State prevented the Committee from granting planning permission this evening, the application could still be refused or deferred but could not be granted.

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update regarding the supplementary document which had some amendments and corrections to the report and an update from the Applicant and Bygrave Parish Council, and highlighted that:

·       Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue had been consulted but had not responded to the application.

·       The date for achieving zero carbon emission was 2040 and not 2030 as stated at paragraph 4.6.1

·       There was an amendment to paragraph 4.6.14 regarding the anaerobic digestor at Bygrave Lodge.

·       Further information had been received from the applicant regarding their grid connection, which could be delivered as soon as the development was approved and would be constructed in phases.

·       An update from Bygrave Parish Council requesting some amendments to the planning conditions.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 22/00741/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

In response to the points of clarification the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

·       The Knoll would have a direct line of sight to the Solar Farm.

·       The distance to the nearest property from the Solar Farm was approximately 120-130 metres.

The Chair invited Mr James Colegrave and Ms Julie Stothard to speak against the application.

Mr Colegrave thanked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Residential development of 47 dwellings and associated car parking, open space, landscaping and creation of access off Grays Lane (as amended by plans received 12.05.2023). 

This item was deferred from this Committee to a later meeting, as the Planning Officer is waiting on a response from the Environmental Health consultee and to allow time to review comments received relating to Air Quality.

Audio recording – 2 hour 4 minute 10 seconds

N.B Councillor Tom Tyson returned to the Council Chamber at 21:34.

This item was deferred from this Committee to a later meeting, as the Planning Officer is waiting on a response from the Environmental Health consultee and to allow time to review comments received relating to Air Quality.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER.

Erection of 52 dwellings including open space, landscaping, local area for play, and associated highway works (as amended by plans received 09/03/23).

RESOLVED: That application 20/02412/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager with the following amended recommendation:

“Recommendation 6.1:

A.    Clarification from HCC Highways regarding local sustainable transport. The response will be shared with the applicant; Parish Council and Chair of Planning Control Committee. If this results in a change to the sustainable transport S106 Contribution for this to be agreed by the Chair of Planning Control Committee;

B.    The completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and the applicant agreeing to extend the statutory period in order to complete the agreement if required; and

C.    Providing delegated powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to update conditions and informatives as set out in the report above; and

D.    Conditions and Informatives as set out below:”

Audio recording – 2 hour 4 minute 24 seconds

The Area Planning Officer provided an update on this matter which included that:

·       An email of supplementary documents had been sent to the Committee and published on the website which corrected some minor typographical errors.

·       There was an update to Paragraph 3.24 of the report and the requested upgrade of two bus stops which the applicant had agreed and this was added to the s106 heads of terms.

·       In response to further clarification from County, the Highways department advised that the s106 money had been allocated to the upgrading of two existing bus stops and a cycle footpath which they felt was sustainable and reasonable.

·       The Area Planning Officer proposed that the amendment to 6.1 of the report be revoked and that the original paragraph 6.1 be reinstated.

The Area Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 20/02412/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Dave Winstanley

·       Councillor Ian Moody

·       Councillor Sean Nolan

·       Councillor Michael Muir

In response to the points of clarification the Area Planning Officer advised that:

·       The speed limit would remain at 40 miles per hour.

·       EV parking would be per house and shared for the flats.

·       The ice house would be repaired and protected as detailed in conditions 13 to 16 of the report and the footpath was adjacent to the ice house.

·       The boundary fences would be 1.8 metres high around the proposed gardens. The existing neighbours had rear gardens of approximately 40m long, which combined with the existing trees on the boundaries and the proposed rear garden means that there are no anticipated privacy issues.

·       The fences did not replace the existing hedgerows on the existing rear boundaries of the existing neighbours. The proposed fences were shown on the plans to be set inside the site.

·       All of the development would be within the proposed site which was no longer considered green belt.

·       There would be additional and enhanced biodiversity.

·       Electric charging points were highlighted in condition 23.

The Chair invited Parish Councillor Robert Moore and Ms Lorna Else to speak in objection of the application.

Parish Councillor Moore thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       In the last three years the applicant and the Parish Council steering group had undertaken a great deal of collaborative work.

·       On balance the Parish Council were in favour of this application but requested s106 money to be spent on a new footpath along Hitchin Road, Gosmore.

·       The proposed footpath was not mentioned in paragraph 3.2 on page 198 of the report.

·       The applicant was making contributions in excess of £1.2M towards s106 money. 

·       The current proposed footpath was impractical, most pedestrians walked along Waterdell Lane and through the village of Gosmore using the footbridge which was safer and more visually stimulating.

·       The payment allocated to priory school would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER.

Erection of 9 dwellings with access following demolition of industrial buildings (all matters reserved except  for access) as amended by details received 7 June 2023.

RESOLVED: That application 23/00549/OP beGRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager with the following amendment to condition 8:

“Condition 8:

As part of the details at Reserved Matters stage, a Biodiversity Net Gain Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority, using the Defra Biodiversity Metric to demonstrate how a minimum of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) will be fulfilled by this development”

Reason: To achieve a BNG of at least 10%, in accordance with Policy NE4 of the Local Plan.

Audio recording – 2 hour 55 minute 4 seconds

·       The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 23/00549/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans, including that there was a typological error at 4.3.12 and 4.3.13 of the report, which should read ‘due west’ and ‘eastern’ respectively. They also advised that a supplementary document had been published regarding Condition 8.

The following Member asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Sean Nolan

·       Councillor Dave Winstanley

In response to points of clarification, the Senior Planning Officer advised:

·       The differences between Highways and the Planning Officers opinions of the proposed access were highlighted in paragraphs 4.3.32 to 4.3.37 of the report.

·       The planning statement made it clear that the two access points had good visibility onto a 30 mile per hour road.

·       Highways had noted the road as a 40 miles per hour.

·       It was acknowledged that this was a rural area with no footpaths and not a suburban area as stated by Highways, the proposed change from an industrial park to housing, would positively impact on the volume of vehicles using the road.

·       It was acknowledged as stated by Highways that this was not a sustainable location for housing, but the considerations in favour of this application outweighed the conflicts.

·       Hedgerows would be retained, as would two large trees, and a detailed landscaping scheme would be required for full planning permission.

The Chair invited Mr James Gran, Dr Julia McGill and Mr Phil Burchell to speak in support of the application.

Mr Gran thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·       The Highways authority considered the access to be acceptable.

·       The frontage trees would be retained, and the dwellings would be set back from the road.

·       Previously at least 50 employee vehicles and daily heavy good vehicles would use these narrow lanes, just 1 employee was now occasionally onsite.

·       Since 2021 other commercial usage for the land had been investigated.

·       The development of this site was appropriate and would make a positive impact on the village.

·       The proposal was for nine detached dwellings with spacious gardens and with no harm to the rural area.

·       There would be fewer trips compared to the current and previous industrial use of this site and associated noises and odours would be reduced.

·       Biodiversity net gains would be achieved in accordance with Condition 8.

·       There would be social and economic benefits to the village.

·       There was no identified harm which would outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

Dr McGill thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·       This development would enhance the setting of all the nearby listed buildings and was strongly supported.

·       There had previously been disruption from speeding vehicles, noise and air pollution on this site.

·       The site had attracted unlawful and anti-social behaviour.

·       There would be a net environmental gain with the reduction of traffic volume.

·       The report from Highways had numerous errors  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER.

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the report.

Audio recording – 3 hour 10 minute 32 seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager advised the Committee that there had been five new planning appeals in the last monitoring period.

Four decisions had been made all of which had been dismissed by the Inspector.

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the report.