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, Terry Tyler and David Levett.

Having given due notice, Councillor Cathy Brownjohn substituted for Councillor Mason and Councillor Michael Muir substituted for Councillor Levett.

Audio recording – 1 minute 59 seconds

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Nigel Mason, Terry Tyler and David Levett.

Having given due notice, Councillor Cathy Brownjohn substituted for Councillor Mason and Councillor Michael Muir substituted for Councillor Levett.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 6 April 2023.

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

Audio Recording – 2 minutes 27 seconds

The Chair reminded Members that those who were new to the Committee, or who were not in attendance at the last meeting, would not normally vote to approve the minutes

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 6 April 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 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 the speaking process for public participants.

(4)   The Chair advised that section 4.8.23(a) applied to this meeting.

Audio recording – 3 Minutes 28 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 the speaking process for public participants.

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

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

Audio recording – 4 minute 47 seconds

The Chair confirmed the registered speakers were in attendance.

RESOLVED: That application 22/02225/FP be REFUSED planning permission due to the reasons outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording - 5 minute 30 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update from the Historic Environmental Advisor at Hertfordshire County Council, who had advised of the following, that:

·       The site lays within a rich and potentially significant archology landscape, focusing on prehistoric burial grounds on either side of Reed.

·       The Anglo Saxon and Medieval settlements were quite unusual and several questions remained about the site remain and therefore a Geophysical survey was warranted.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 22/02225/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Senior Planning Officer summarised that:

·       This development offered limited benefits regarding overall housing needs with no affordable housing included and was not providing section 106 money for local services and the Parish Council.

·       This development would cause significant harm to the open rural character and setting of the Conservation Area and would have an adverse visual impact to users of the public footpaths and highways.

·       The harms of this development outweighed the positives.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair invited County Councillor Fiona Hill to speak against the application. County Councillor Hill thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       Reed Parish Council endorsed the Officers recommendation to refuse the Application.

·       A site “RD1” on the Local Plan was allocated to provide the further housing growth in Reed including affordable housing.

·       This Application did not offer any affordable housing.

·       Since 2011 there had been a 10.5% housing increase in housing in Reed.

·       Policy SP2 of the Local Plan should be applied with sensitivity in category A villages such as Reed and concluded that this development would harm the village.

·       The Parish Council fully supported the judgement of the Planning Officer and the Conservation Officer, that the proposed development would be harmful to the area and overall character of Reed and would have an adverse effect on the village.

·       The Parish Council requested that the Committee follows recommendations of the Planning Officer and refuses this application. 

There were no points of Clarification from Members.

The Chair thanked County Councillor Hill for her presentation and invited Councillor Gerald Morris to speak against the application. Councillor Morris thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       He supported the comments of Reed Parish Council, the Officers and NDHC Conservation Officers and the recommendation to refuse this application.

·       The site was part of a previous planning application where it was stated that the land should remain undeveloped and landscaped.

·       The development would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

·       The application is not accompanied by a Biodiversity net gain metric.

·       No energy assessment had been received.

·       The application offered no affordable Housing.

·       Any new developments would require the sewage treatment plant at Reed to be upgraded to prevent an environmental problem.

There were no points of Clarification from Members.

The Chair  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

RESOLVED: That application 22/03245/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager with the following additional conditions:

“Condition 4:

No development shall commence until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the construction of the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall detail:

(1)   Construction vehicle numbers.

(2)   Access arrangements to the site for the delivery of materials and equipment.

(3)   Details of the storage of materials on-site.

(4)   Timing of construction activities (including delivery times and removal of waste) and the hours of construction.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and residential amenity”.

“Condition 5:

All paving hereby approved and constructed on site shall be permeable unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of ensuring that suitable drainage is provided”. 

Audio recording – 24 minutes 33 seconds

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that there were no updates or changes since the report, but some extra labels had been added to the plan of the roof slope.

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 22/03245/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

In response to a question from Councillor Louise Peace, the Planning Officer advised, that the party wall was a civil matter and did not pertain to the application.

The Chair invited Pirton Parish Councillor Diane Burleigh to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Burleigh thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       The Parish Council would not have objected to a more modest version of the application but felt this extension was too large and dominant in what was a small and cramped space.

·       The property was part of three terraced cottages from the late 19^th Century which have a 13.5-foot-wide narrow garden.

·       The property was listed as a property of interest in the Pirton Neighbourhood Plan.

·       Under section 8 and 3 of the Neighbourhood Plan the extension would not meet the guidelines and would not enhance the Conservation Area.

·       The extension was taller that the current outbuilding, and at over 12 feet wide the extension would provide very little room between the boundaries.

·       The current house had a footprint of 40 square meters or 46 if the outbuilding was included. The extension would increase the footprint to 69.

·       The extension was not sympathetic to the neighbouring properties, from No 7 there would be 20 inches of path and then a 10-foot wall which would block out light.

·       The front roof lights are not in keeping with the Conservation Area.

·       The applicant had offered blinds to prevent light pollution but there is no guarantee that would continue with future occupants.

The following Members asked point of clarification:

·       Councillor Sean Nolan

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

In response to the points of clarification Parish Councillor advised:

·       The property was listed in Pirton Neighbourhood Plan as a building of local interest, it is a non-listed important building of local interest.

·       The floor plan was 40 square meters, but with the outbuilding it is 46 square meters, the new plan was a 75% increase on existing area.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Burleigh for her presentation and invited Councillor Claire Strong to speak against the application. Councillor Strong thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       She supported the objections of the Parish Councils to this application.

·       The extension covered a larger footprint than the existing outbuilding, most of the extension is on the other side of the outbuilding and covered a large area of the garden, bordering No 7.  

·       The application was in a Conservation Area, but there was no published report from the Conservation Officer.

·       The report suggested the extension complied to point 3.1 of the Pirton Neighbourhood  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of nine detached dwellings (2 x 3-bed, 1 x 4-bed and 6 x 5-bed) including garaging, parking, landscaping and creation of vehicular access off Gray's Lane.

RESOLVED: That application 22/00516/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager as amended by the Supplementary Agenda, as well as:

(1)   The completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking relating to achieving Biodiversity Net Gain from the proposed development, or the applicant agreeing to extend the statutory period in order to complete the agreement or provide a satisfactory unilateral undertaking.

(2)   Confirmation that Hertfordshire County Council’s Rights of Way Officer has no objections to the proposal.

And the following additional condition:

“Condition 15:

No dwelling shall be occupied until a scheme setting out details of all on-site household refuse and recycling storage and collection facilities (to include details of any enclosures or screening) to serve each dwelling have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The scheme shall also include arrangements for management of any other waste generated by the development.  All such facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the corresponding dwellings and shall be maintained and retained thereafter.

Reason: To facilitate refuse and recycling collection.  To protect the amenities of nearby residents and occupiers in the interests of visual amenity and to comply with Policies D1 and D3 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031.”

Audio recording 1 hour and 11 minutes

The Development and Conservation Manager, informed the Committee that there were updates provided in the Supplementary Pack which included:

·       Clarification of drawing numbers and a tree survey.

·       A revised appraisal of the biodiversity submitted by Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust showed a net loss of 1.17 hectare, which could be offset by a contribution of £15K to build an offsite enhancement in North Herts.

·       The County Council had withdrawn their request for a financial contribution as this application fell below their 10-house threshold.

·       A new condition had been added, requiring the provision of a soft and hard landscaping scheme.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of Application 22/00516/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Development and Conservation Manager summarised that:

·       The site extended to 0.8 hectors and included woodland on the western edge of Hitchin.

·       When the Local Plan was adopted the site was removed from the Green Belt.

·       The site was acceptable for a residential development as set out in the Local Plan.

·       The Local Plan estimated 16 dwellings on the site, this application is for 9, and considered the location, accessibility, density and constraints of hedge land, site access and trees.

·       The application was for six, five bedroom houses, one, four bedroom houses and two three bedroom houses.

·       The site was on the edge of town in a low-density area and the proposed houses were in keeping with the scale and character of nearby large detached dwellings.

·       The layout and was acceptable under Policy D1 of the Local Plan.

·       The woods would be repurposed and are subject to a landscaping condition.

·       After the access point for this development, Lucas Lane became a bridleway, and the Local Planning Authority considered this application acceptable subject to conditions listed in the report.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Sean Nolan

·       Councillor Ian Moody

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Val Bryant

In response to the points of clarification, the Development and Conservation Manager stated that:

·       Access via Grays Lane to the site was an adopted road but there were no plans to adopt Lucas Lane.

·       Road access would be the same for this application and for the HT6 application.

·       Using DEFRA calculation which considers different species with different biodiversity values, it was concluded that there was a net loss on the site of 1.17 habitat units.

·       There was a well-used path across the site but it was not a public footpath as defined by the County Council.

·       The illustrations showed some planting of trees and landscaping to reflect the master plan landscaping.

·       A revised plan was submitted to Highways which had been agreed.

·       A further condition had been added regarding waste and recycling.

·       The response from the County Councils changed after further clarification and drawings of the bridleway.

·       The Right of Ways officer had yet to respond, but the bridleway had a free and safe passage in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER.

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the report.

Audio recording – 2 hour 12 minutes

N.B. Councillor Ian Moody left the Chamber at 21:42 and did not return to the meeting.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented an update on “Planning Appeals” which included:

·       The report identified the six appeals lodged and were awaiting a decision.

·       The report identified the Planning Appeal decisions made since the last Planning Meeting. Of the six Appeals listed, four were dismissed and two were allowed for minor issues.

In response to a question from Councillor Simon Bloxham, the Development and Conservation Manager stated, that of the appeals allowed, 1 had been a split decision and the other was a Highways objection that the Inspector allowed.

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the report.