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 John Bishop, Morgan Derbyshire, Tony Hunter, Ian Mantle and Carol Stanier.

Having given due notice Councillor George Davies substituted for Councillor Morgan Derbyshire, Councillor Michael Muir substituted for Councillor Tony Hunter and Councillor Amy Allen substituted for Councillor Ian Mantle.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Bishop, Morgan Derbyshire, Tony Hunter, Ian Mantle and Carol Stanier.

Having given due notice Councillor George Davies substituted for Councillor Morgan Derbyshire, Councillor Michael Muir substituted for Councillor Tony Hunter and Councillor Amy Allen substituted for Councillor Ian Mantle.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 18 November 2021.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 18 November 2021 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

Councillor Mike Rice, 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 18 November 2021 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.

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.

(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.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the two registered public speakers were in attendance.

The Chair confirmed that the two registered public speakers were in attendance.

RESOLVED: That application 21/02316/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following additional condition:

·         Condition 4 to be added with the following:

“The first floor side window in the proposed north elevation of the side extension shall be permanently glazed with obscure glass and shall be permanently fixed closed.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling.”

The Planning Officer advised there was one update to the report and this related to an amended scheme received from the agent to ensure no overhang of the footpath to the side of the site.

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 21/02316/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions:

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

·         Councillor Michael Muir

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised:

·         It was not known the exact width of the footbath to the side of the site. 

·         It was advised not to build to the boundary of the site, where this would cause terracing or adversely affect the street scheme, but that was not deemed applicable to this application.

The Chair invited the Member Advocate, Councillor Mandi Tandi, to speak against the application.

Councillor Tandi thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation including:

·         The Parish Council had objected to this application.

·         The first floor side extension was to extend to the boundary of the site, which is against North Herts District Council policy.

·         The height and extent of the gable wall will have a heavy impact on the use of the footpath and the extension would overhang the boundary.

·         A previous application had to be altered following it being too close to the boundary and to minimise the overbearing impact, so there was precedent on this issue.

The following Members took part in the debate:

·         Councillor Michael Muir

·         Councillor Mike Rice

·         Councillor David Levett

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

In response to points raised in the debate, the Planning Officer advised:

·         The condition covering the glazed window overlooking the neighbouring property could be extended to ensure the window is non-opening, to ensure the privacy of the residents.

·         The neighbouring property had the main house and then several ancillary buildings up to the end of the boundary.

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

RESOLVED: That application 21/02316/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following additional condition:

·         Condition 4 to be added with the following:

“The first floor side window in the proposed north elevation of the side extension shall be permanently glazed with obscure glass and shall be permanently fixed closed.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling.”

RESOLVED: That application 21/03411/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

The Planning Officer advised that there were no updates to provide to Members and presented the report in respect of application 21/03411/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions:

·         Councillor Ian Moody

·         Councillor Val Bryant

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised:

·         There would not be floodlights attached to the proposed tennis court and this was covered by a condition to restrict any lighting.

·         The court was proposed to be green in colour, but this was not a condition on the application. There was a condition outlined which stipulated that the surrounding fence was required to be green.

Councillor Michael Muir proposed and Councillor Ian Moody seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 21/03411/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

RESOLVED: That application 21/02708/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 condition:

·         Condition 7 to be added with the following:

“Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted full details of surface treatment for the access track shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such works shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details or particulars prior to the first occupation of the development and thereafter retained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the any new hard surface is of sensitive construction to minimise impact on landscape.”

Councillor Ian Moody announced to the Chair that he had a declaration of interest in this item and, once he had completed his presentation as Member Advocate, he would leave the Chamber for the remainder of the item.

The Planning Officer advised of updates to the report including:

·         There was an administrative error which had wrongly seen the consultation expiry date listed as the 9 March 2022. Neighbours and relevant consultees had previously been consulted and there was no ongoing consultation.

·         Additional comments had been received from CPRE regarding the impact on the greenbelt, encroachment into the countryside and concern about future development following creation of access track.

·         Two additional comments had been received from neighbours regarding the change of size of stables from the permission granted in 2006 and the impact of the access track.

·         There had been an assessment of the track carried out as detailed in paragraph 4.3.20. When the site is viewed in the round, the development and track would not have an undermining impact on the greenbelt.

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 21/02708/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions:

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised that a further condition was being added to ensure details of surface treatments would be provided. At the moment it was expected to be tarmac, but a condition could be added to consider other surfaces.

The Chair invited Gary Conrad to speak against the application.

Mr Conrad thanked the Chair for the chance to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation including:

·         Irrespective of the existing building, these proposals would affect the greenbelt in this area, which is one of the most attractive views in North Herts.

·         This development would extend beyond the village boundary and fails to take into account the reality of the site.

·         The roadway outlined in the report is detailed as an existing track, but this does not exist and to access the site you would need to cross a field, which would mean about 120 metres of tarmac across greenbelt land.

·         These proposals would affect the three neighbouring properties, with impact on privacy of residents and disturbance from vehicles servicing the site.

·         The creation of a new access road would have an impact on the footpath users.

·         Approval of this access road could then lead to further development across the entire field.

·         Permission granted in 2006 for the site was for a single story stable with a low roof. In 2007, the stable was moved and the roof height was made higher than that which was granted permission and this higher height was now being used for this application.

·         The new occupants would be able to see into the grounds, first floor and gardens of the three adjacent properties, thus affecting privacy.

·         The gardens of the existing dwellings currently have low level fencing, due to their positioning, and this development would impact those.

The Chair  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

RESOLVED: That application 22/00089/TCA be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

The Planning Officer advised that there were no updates to provide to Members and presented the report in respect of application 22/00089/TCA supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

In response to a question from the Chair, the Planning Officer advised that this application had been brought to the Committee as it was from a Member of the Council.

Councillor Val Bryant proposed and Councillor Ian Moody seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 22/00089/TCA be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Siting of an events marquee for a temporary period of five years.

RESOLVED: That application 19/02227/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 condition:

·         Condition 4 to be added with the following:

“Prior to 31 March 2023 if the marquee hereby permitted is still in operation and use, full details of an acoustic performance review, including details of any noise complaints received and how they were addressed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a review shall also include additional noise mitigation as may be required as a result of the review and any approved additional measures shall be carried out in accordance with a timetable that shall have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and remain in operation thereafter until the use of the marquee ceases.

Reason: To ensure the continued operation of the marquee does not have harm local amenity through excessive noise nuisance.”

Councillor George Davies announced to the Chair that he had a declaration of interest in this item and, once he had completed his presentation as Member Advocate, he would leave the Chamber for the remainder of the item.

Councillor Terry Tyler advised that he had a declaration of interest in this item and, as a non-registered speaking Member, he would leave the room immediately.

At this point Councillor Terry Tyler left the Chamber.

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

·         Condition 3, outlined on page 52 of the agenda pack, should read ‘no later than 11pm’, not 11am as currently written.

·         The applicant had requested that this be extended to 11.30pm, but from discussions the Officer recommendations remain at 11pm.

The Conservation and Development Manager presented the report in respect of application 19/02227/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Chair invited the Member Advocate, Councillor George Davies, to speak against the application.

Councillor Davies thanked the Chair for the chance to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation including:

·         There had been a large amount of public interest in this application and it had dominated several Parish Council meetings and it was felt appropriate that the decision making process on this application should be public in light of this.

·         The temporary marquee permission was granted a while ago and a further application for a larger marquee was rejected, although the marquee was still erected and a retrospective planning permission application was advised.

·         The land contours of the area carry sound well and this means a large amount of noise is carried into local villages, which had been demonstrated recently at a Parish Council meeting.

·         The report details that no new noise complaints had been received, but this may be down to the Parish Council viewing the matter as being dealt with by the District Council and as such have not submitted any further comment. 

·         Since events have restarted following the pandemic, there have been noise complaints made by local residents.

·         A resident has been provided with a noise measuring device to record high volumes and the time this happens.

·         It is important that should permission be granted, noise conditions should be imposed to limit the impact to local residents.

In response to points raised by the Member Advocate, the Conservation and Development Manager advised:

·         Enforcement Officers at the Council would not tell people not to complain about issues they are experiencing.

·         Noise issues were controlled under Environmental Protection Act and if new complaints were received, these would be diarised and the Environmental Health team can deal with these issues if they became a nuisance.

·         Conditions imposed by the Committee, the two year proposed limit of permission and the Environmental Protection Act all gave some level of control over the site.

·         By the end of 2022, the applicant would be looking at a more permanent arrangement.  

At this point Councillor George Davies left the Chamber.

In response to a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

RESOLVED: That the report entitled ‘Planning Appeals’ be noted.

The Conservation and Development Manager presented the report entitled ‘Planning Appeals’ and it was:

RESOLVED: That the report entitled ‘Planning Appeals’ be noted.