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 Councillor Terry Tyler.

Audio recording – 1 minute 59 seconds

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Terry Tyler.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 14 September 2023.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 14 September 2023 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

Audio Recording – 2 minutes 15 seconds

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

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 14 September 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 58 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 – 3 minutes 2 seconds

(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 clarified matters for the registered speakers.

(4)        The Chair advised that Section 4.8.23(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 minutes 23 seconds

N.B Councillor Philip Weeder entered the Council Chamber at 19:34.

The Chair confirmed the registered speakers were in attendance.

RESOLVED: That application 18/01154/OP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 5 minutes 18 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that four local residents had submitted late representations, however there were no new points raised.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 18/01154/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Simon Bloxham

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Sean Nolan

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

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

·       The applicant used manual and automatic traffic counts to update the traffic assessment and found that the original assessment was robust, and the traffic assessment mitigation was detailed in the report.

·       There were specific transport projects detailed under strand 1 of the S106 money and Highways have highlighted projects to allocate any remaining S106 money.

·       The signalised ‘shuttle system’ under the Woolgrove Road bridge had been earmarked, along with ongoing work on other Hitchin transport projects.

·       The widening the footpath under the Woolgrove Road bridge would allow users to pass each other safely, along with a shuttle traffic light system.

·       There would be a one-way system under the Bridge with a height restriction, this would make it clearer to drivers and decrease bridge strikes. The cost for the bridge work was estimated at £500K.

·       Projects and their feasibility had been highlighted on page 32 of the report.

·       The money would be sent to HCC Highways who would then allocate the funding to the right projects according to feasibility and stage of the project.

·       The footpath under the bridge would be increased from one metre wide to about 2 metres.

In response to the points of clarification the Senior Development Officer for Development Management at Hertfordshire County Council Highways stated that:

·       The widening of the footpath would increase user safety, as vehicles going under the bridge would then use the middle of the road, this scheme was workable and deliverable.

·       The 2017 traffic assessment had been quantified and the transport assessment trip data was robust, the trip data should show an industry standard of point 05.

·       The speed limit on the Stotfold Road would be reduced to 30 miles per hour.

In response to the points of clarification the Group Manager for Local Development Plans and Strategic Development at Hertfordshire County Council Highways stated that:

·       The shuttle system used traffic lights, and only allowed the one way flow of traffic at any given time, consideration had been given to any impact on congestion. 

·       The strand 1 works identified as S278 were usually required to develop the site and were usually carried out by a third party or the developer.

·       Strand 2 works were normally identified as S106 with a contribution from the applicant. A number of schemes would be identified, and the work would usually be carried out by HCC and could take place over a number of years.

·       The road speed would be 30 miles per hour from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER.

Creation of footpath/cycleway between Stotfold Road, Hitchin and The Green Way, Letchworth Garden City

RESOLVED: That application 22/00303/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 59 minutes 47 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 22/00303/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

Councillor Mick Debenham proposed and Councillor David Levett seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 22/00303/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

N.B Following the conclusion of this item there was a short break in proceedings until 20:44.

RESOLVED: That application 22/03092/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager as amended by the Supplementary agenda, with the following additional condition:

“Condition 28:

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme of sensitively designed lighting strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall include and consider temporary construction lighting as well as more permanent lighting associated with the development hereby approved. Light-spill (including from temporary construction lighting) onto retained and newly created habitat, in particular the retained woodland habitat forming the south of the site, should be minimised in accordance with good practice guidance, as set out in footnote 15 of the approved Updated Ecological Report by Aspect Ecology referenced 1005083 UEcoAp vf12 CL dated 15/11/2022. The sensitively designed lighting strategy shall consider the following key factors:

• Light exclusion zones

• Variable Lighting Regimes

• Light barriers

• Spacing and height of lighting units

• Light intensity

• Directionality

Reason: To ensure the protection, enhancement and management of biodiversity, and to comply with Policy NE4 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.”

Audio recording – 1 hour 14 minutes 1 second

N.B Councillor Sean Nolan returned to the Council Chamber at 20:44.

Councillor Nigel Mason advised that, following discussions with the Legal Advisor, as he had previously made comments publicly on this application and was therefore predetermined, he would leave the Chamber for the duration of this item.

N.B Councillor Nigel Mason left the Council Chamber at 20:45.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 22/03092/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

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

·       The applicant and Officers were aware that technology moved quickly and had proposed rather than confirmed, the solar panel and air source heat pump measures in section 7.1, which had been updated in condition 25 of the report, that these would be an enhancement of the measures outlined in section 7.1.

·       The biodiversity net gain (BNG) metric had demonstrated a net gain from the development and was policy compliant.

·       Herts Ecology had requested a Management Plan, and this has formed part of a condition for a BNG Management Plan and will later be adopted by the Council.

In response to the points of clarification the Principal Planning Officer stated that there was no current condition regarding low level lighting.

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

·       They had made criticisms of the transport assessment and air quality reports in January and that recently the air quality report had been revised.

·       There was an under estimation of the evening rush hour traffic at the intersection of Grays Lane and Upper Tilehouse Street as shown in table 5.7 of the report.

·       This application along with the HG5 site would increase traffic by 40% in the morning and 53% in the evening rush hour, which would exasperate congestion especially with pedestrians crossing the road.

·       The S106 money to improve pedestrian crossings, bus stops, and traffic light scheme will not elevate the traffic congestion or mitigate the congestion.

·       The air quality at the foot of Grays Lane would be affected by increased queuing traffic, this junction is on the edge of an air quality management area.

·       The air quality capsule in Upper Tilehouse Street is already showing nitrogen dioxide level close to, and in excess of, the air quality objectives and these are predicted to increase.

·       The application should be deferred to allow a decision to be made from clear, complete, and correct information.

·       The site contravenes the Local Plan as no site should overlook the Chilterns and changes to the boundary should not mitigate this.

·       The loss of meadowland, trees and hedgerows would result in a loss of wildlife and protected species of bats and badgers.

·       The 10% BNG was incorrect, due  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

RESOLVED: That application 23/01198/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 1 hour 54 minutes 30 seconds

N.B Councillor Nigel Mason returned to Chamber at 21:24

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 23/01198/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Sean Nolan

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

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

·       The application was a requirement of the properties building control condition, that required a place for a fire engine to park at a point that was within 45 metres of the furthest point of the building, and the application did not conflict with any planning policies.

·       They had attended the site and made a visual inspection and believed there were potential areas available to house the benches and washing lines.

·       North Herts District Council were the applicant in this matter and as the application had objections the application be decided at a Planning Control Committee meeting, as outlined in the Constitution.

In response to a point of clarification, Councillor David Levett stated that the matter had been discussed at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The building had been a block of flats and then the offices of Careline and now it had been converted back to flats and, as building regulations had been updated, they now required fire brigade access.

The Chair invited Mr John Bentick and Ms Susanna Casserly to speak against the application. Mr Bentick thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       Removing the parking bays and building was not an improvement for tenants and would remove a substantial part of the communal area.

·       Three trees would need to be removed for this application and this would hinder the safe passageway of tenants with mobility issues.

·       Parking for a fire engine had always been available from the existing car park area.

·       The proposed fire brigade parking bay would be closer to an tenant that suffered with asthma.

·       The changes to the 2019 building regulations required access from 45 metres from the building, which should have been considered in the original conversion planning application approved in August 2020.

·       It was absurd to move the tenant facilities when this error was down to a lack of due diligence.

·       There were other suitable alternatives to this scheme, and access sites for a fire engine including on the road at the back of Harkness Court.

·       The item should be deferred for a site visit to view the limited space and to explore alternative solutions.

Ms Casserly thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       There had been very little communication concerning the change of use from Careline to four flats and the requirement of two parking spaces for four flats.

·       The tenants pay a service charge for the communal gardens which is regularly used and cared for.

·       There were no alternative sites for the washing lines  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order TPO/00208 (2023) – 1x Common Beech (Fagus sylvatica), 4 Coach Drive, Hitchin, Herts.

RESOLVED: That the provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO/00208) be CONFIRMED.

Audio recording – 2 hour 22 minutes 6 seconds

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of TPO/00208 (2023) supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor David Levett the Planning Officer stated that they believed that the homeowner would be responsible for the tree management, and when works were required on the tree it would be reasonable to state that the Council would be unlikely to object to any application.

Councillor Sean Nolan proposed and Councillor Nigel Mason seconded and following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That the provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO/00208) be CONFIRMED.