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 Nigel Mason, Ian Moody and Terry Tyler.

Having given due notice, Councillor Ian Mantle substituted for Councillor Mason and Councillor Michael Muir substituted for Councillor Moody.

Audio recording – 1 minute 17 seconds

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Nigel Mason, Terry Tyler and Ian Moody.

Having given due notice, Councillor Ian Mantle substituted for Councillor Mason and Councillor Michael Muir substituted for Councillor Moody.

N.B Councillor Philip Weeder entered the Council Chamber at 19:31.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 12 October 2023

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 12 October 2023 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

Audio Recording – 1 minute 51 seconds

Councillor Val Bryant, as Chair, proposed and Councillor Tom Tyson seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 12 October 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 – 2 minutes 24 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.

(4)        The Chair advised that Section 4.8.23(a) of the Constitution applied to the meeting.

Audio recording – 2 minutes 50 seconds

(1)        The Chair welcomed those present at the meeting, especially those who had attended to give a presentation;

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

(3)        The Chair drew attention to the item on the agenda front pages regarding Declarations of Interest and reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

Audio recording – 4 minutes 6 seconds

The Chair confirmed the registered speakers were in attendance.

RESOLVED: That application 17/04017/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 4 minutes 34 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided the following updates that:

·       There was an updated location and site plan that clarified the boundary lines of the conservation area.

·       A geophysical survey report had been forwarded to a Historic Environment Officer at Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) for comments.

·       The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) had undertaken a further consultation.

·       There was a typological error at 4.3 of the report, the percentage should read 85%.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 17/04017/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Simon Bloxham

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

·       Councillor Michael Muir

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

·       The geophysical report did not show any significant features and had been produced using the magnetic survey method.

·       There had been three revisions of the flood risk assessment. The LLFA had looked at all matters raised, and tests included a CCT survey of the foul and surface water sewers in the high street. There was a drainage strategy and full maintenance schedule for the sustainable urban drainage system.

·       There had been some changes made to the access point of the site and the geometry of the access was now in accordance with the Highways requests. The details of the changes had been sent to Highways for comments and confirmation.

·       The vehicle access detailed in Condition 4 was required prior to the construction of the development.

·       The proposed garages would be three metres wide and eight metres deep and comply with the car parking standards document.

Councillor Tom Tyson commented that this was an application for ten dwellings that had Section 106 (S106) contributions and was supported by the Parish Council. 

Councillor Tom Tyson proposed and Councillor David Levett seconded and, following a vote, it was:

That application 17/04017/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

RESOLVED: That application 22/02942/OP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the deletion of Condition 7 and the re numbering of Conditions 8 to 17 to Conditions 7 to 16 with the following amendment to the new Condition 8.

“Condition 8

Prior to the commencement of the relevant phase of works, full details of the proposed green corridor link through the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the green corridor link permanently retained as part of the approved development.

Reason: To ensure construction of a satisfactory development in the interests of highway safety and amenity and in accordance with Policy 5, 13 and 21 of Hertfordshire's Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018). To also comply with Policy KW1 of the North Herts Local Plan 2011 – 2031’.

Audio recording – 20 minutes 21 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided the following updates that:

·       The applicant had queried the necessity and relevance of Condition 7 after a financial arrangement of £68,260 had been agreed with HCC Highways. Condition 7 should therefore be deleted.

·       Changes were proposed to the wording of Condition 9 as the footpath would be a permissive right of way rather than a formal right of way and further details of this pathway would be included in the application for full planning permission.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/02942/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

In response to a declaration of interest query from Councillor Simon Bloxham, the Locum Planning Lawyer confirmed that there was no conflict of interest in this matter.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Louise Peace

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

·       The site was not under the Luton Airport Flight path, but some noise was audible.

·       There was an hourly bus service past the site and the applicant had a sustainable transport contribution as part of the S106 agreement and this would be used to encourage non car usage.

·       The dwellings would be set back and of an orientation that would mitigate the noise from aircrafts as stated in paragraph 5.11 of the report, they would also have thermal double glazing and trickle vents.

·       The dwellings had been reduced to 10 and the application would only use 75% of the allocated land, the applicant had a garden lease with local residents on the remaining land.

The Chair invited Lois Partridge to speak in support of the application. Ms Partridge thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       The site had been allocated on the Local Plan, and was on a sustainable location with the benefits of a school, public house, village hall and church.

·       Some of the land had been leased under a garden license, for local residents to increase their back gardens, so the number of dwellings on the application site had been reduced.

·       The application site only occupied 75% of the original site and would accommodate three and four bedroomed dwellings.

·       The proposed site met with all 5 criteria of the Local Plan including noise mitigation measures with a scheme of noise mitigation measures forming a condition of the application.

·       The site was formally used for allotments and new allotments sites had been provided for all holders that decided to relocate, with two plots remaining vacant.

·       The siting of the properties was sensitive to the surrounding area especially the nearby listed buildings and the closest new dwelling was 12 metres from the access frontage.

·       The western boundary would be reinforced to screen the view of the site, and would retain the hedgerows, more details would be provided when the applicant applied for full planning permission.

·       The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140.

RESOLVED: That application 23/01807/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 45 minutes 8 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that there was a typological error and that Condition 10 should state driveway instead of car park.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 23/01807/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

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

·       Highways had requested that the applicant show vehicle/pedestrian visibility splays at the access point and that the footpath on the site’s frontage was widened from 1.4 metres to 2.4 metres.

·       The vehicle/pedestrian visibility splays requested by Highways had been secured by the proposed amended Condition 9.

·       The application site was located in a rural area, where the width of footpaths were 1.4 metres. It was felt that the request from Highways to extend this to 2.4 metres in front of the application site was unreasonable.

The Chair invited Colin Eades to speak in support of the application. Mr Eades thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       The key issue related to a recommendation from HCC Highways regarding the width of the footpath.

·       All the consultees supported the application however, HCC Highways had imposed a condition beyond the bounds of reasonableness or appropriateness.

·       The footpaths were a constant 1.4 metres wide in this area, including the 15 metres applicable to this application.

·       Under the proposed Highways condition the 15 metres in question would be expanded to 2.4 metres, however the remaining stretches of footpaths in Ashwell Road would remain at 1.4 metre wide.

·       There were four dwellings in the area and no incidents had occurred on the footpaths, it was occasionally used by dogwalkers as there were no amenities in walking distance, so most journeys were made by car.

·       The visual displays would provide a gradual widening of the access area.

·       There had been concerns from the Conservation Officer regarding the loss of hedgerows and wildlife habitat.

·       HCC Highways had not imposed a similar footpath request for a nearby dwelling that currently had no footpath and the footpaths on Walsworth Road, one of the busiest roads in the district were on average 1.4 metres wide.

·       The application was fully complaint with HCC Highways request, for vehicle and pedestrian visibility displays ensuring pedestrian safety.

The Chair thanked Mr Eades for his presentation.

Councillor Sean Nolan commented that this was an easy decision for Members and that the Committee should follow the recommendation of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the pavement width.

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

RESOLVED: That application 23/01807/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

RESOLVED: That application 22/00709/FP be REFUSED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 1 hour 19 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that there had been a further response from the LLFA stating that they objected to the application as there was no surface water drainage on the western parcel of the site.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/00709/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

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

·       The application was for temporary use of the land for 40 years, whilst this was a considerable length of time it was noted that this was not unusual for this type of application.

·       The study area highlighted in blue, and commissioned by the applicant, showed the different impacts of planning matters, such as Heritage assets and residential properties, the study identified potential areas that may be impacted, and these were then addressed in the report.

The Chair invited Mr Peter Hobson to speak against the application. Mr Hobson thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       They supported renewable energy, but this application was in the wrong location.

·       They supported the report and recommendations of the Senior Planning Officer.

·       The application site was crossed by well used footpaths including the Hertfordshire Way which offered picturesque views, this application would cause significant harm to the landscape and visual impact of these footpaths and to the openness of the green belt land.

·       The HCC Conservation Officer objected to the application due to the great harm to nearby Heritage assets located at Almshoe Bury, the Wyck and the Redcoat Farmhouse.

·       There were 409 comments received about the application, 236 of the comments were objections, with the majority of objectors living close to the site.

·       There had been over a thousand signatures on a petition opposing the application, but supporting renewable energy options.

·       People of Hitchin wanted renewable energy but felt that this was not the right site.

·       North Herts currently generates 11 megawatts of electricity from two small solar projects.

·       This solar farm, and the proposed Bygrave site would be amongst the largest solar farms in the UK with an estimated 50 megawatts capacity each which would equate to 1.34% of all ground mounted solar PV in the UK.

·       Should the two applications be successful the sites would equate to 20% of all ground mounted solar capacity installed this year and 10% over the last 12 months.

·       In proportion to land mass this application would be five times above the UK national average of ground mounted solar PV.

·       The proposed site was on highly valuable green land that was currently enjoyed by local residents.

The Chair thanked Mr Hobson for his presentation and invited Councillor David Barnard to speak against the application. Councillor Barnard thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that: 

·       NHDC declared  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER.

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the report.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report entitled ‘Planning Appeals’ and informed the Committee that there had been one appeal lodged regarding a stretch tent at the Old George, Arseley Road Ickleford, and this would follow the written representation procedure.

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the report.