Agenda, decisions and draft 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 Daniel Allen, Louise Peace, Ian Moody, Sean Nolan and Terry Tyler.

Having given due notice Councillor Steve Jarvis substituted for Councillor Peace, Councillor Ian Mantle substituted for Councillor Allen, Councillor Dave Winstanley substituted for Councillor Nolan and Councillor Michael Muir substituted for Councillor Moody.

Audio recording – 1 minute 27 seconds

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Daniel Allen, Louise Peace, Ian Moody, Sean Nolan and Terry Tyler.

Having given due notice Councillor Steve Jarvis substituted for Councillor Peace, Councillor Michael Muir substituted for Councillor Moody, Councillor Ian Mantle substituted for Councillor Allen and Councillor Dave Winstanley substituted for Councillor Nolan.

Councillor Phil Weeder was absent.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 15 February 2024

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 15 February 2024 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

Audio Recording – 2 minutes 2 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 15 February 2024 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 54 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.

(5)   The Chair advised that agenda item 6, 23/00563/FP, had been deferred to a future meeting of the Committee to allow the Council to consider late information submitted to Members of the Planning Control Committee by the applicant and the Planning Authority was considering its own independent legal advice.

Audio recording – 2 minutes 58 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.

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

(5)   The Chair advised that agenda item 6, 23/00563/FP, had been deferred to a future meeting of the Committee to allow the Council to consider late information submitted to Members of the Planning Control Committee by the applicant and the Planning Authority was considering its own independent legal advice.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

Audio recording – 5 minutes 50 seconds

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER    

Erection of 43 dwellings, access from Lower Innings, associated internal roads, parking, landscaping, amenity space and open space.

The Chair confirmed that agenda item 6, 23/00563/FP had been deferred to a future meeting of the Committee.

Audio recording – 6 minute 44 seconds

The Chair confirmed that agenda item 6, 23/00563/FP had been deferred to a future meeting of the Committee. 

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER    

Erection of new convenience retail unit (Class E); alterations to means of access and reorganisation and extension of car park, including the change of use of land from residential gardens and the installation of EV charging points; demolition of outbuildings to pub and external alterations including the erection of garden pergola and structures, new patio and external lighting and installation of new cold store and covered walkway to back of house and replacement of part of kitchen extraction system.

RESOLVED: That application 23/01947/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 and with the following additional Conditions 17 and 18 and the following amendment to informative 3 and the addition of informative 8.

“Condition 17:

The retail unit hereby permitted shall not be open to customers and there shall not be any deliveries outside the hours of 07:00 until 23:00 Monday to Sunday and Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy D3 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031.

Condition 18:

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted lighting scheme (Plan No. 020-16-E-01) and retained as such thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the development minimises light pollution and to protect wildlife and habitats in accordance with Policy NE4 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 and Section 15 of the NPPF (2023).

Informative 3:

It is an offence under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 for any person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way to wilfully obstruct the free passage along a highway or public right of way. If this development is likely to result in the public highway or public right of way network becoming routinely blocked (fully or partly) the applicant must contact the Highway Authority to obtain their permission and requirements before construction works commence (such as the installation of a box junction or keep clear marks). Further information is available via the website https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/highways-roads-and-pavements/highways-roads-and-pavements.aspx telephoning 0300 1234047.

Informative 8:

The applicant shall investigate a scheme of sustainability measures for the shop building, including the installation of solar panels. If sustainability measures are deemed to be feasible, they shall be implemented on site and retained thereafter.”

Audio recording – 6 minutes 49 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that:

·       There was an addition to the end of the Condition 7 to read, ‘or any other such agreement’.

·       There was an addition to the end of Condition 9 to read, ‘the applicant should liaise with the Highways Authority with regards to any changes that may need to be made to the kerb line at the site accesses.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 23/01947/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Simon Bloxham

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

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

·       The blue line on the plan showed the visibility splays and were a Highways requirement which allowed motorists to have a complete view of Cambridge Road. These splays complied with Highway standards.

·       There would be four, 4-metre-high lights on the site, the operational hours of these lights had not been stated.

·       A transport assessment had been completed and concluded that there would be no impact on traffic. Highways therefore did not have any objections to this application subject to Conditions and Informatives.

·       The car parking spaces would be open for public use.

·       Highways assessed the application, and the visibility splays were acceptable to their standards.

·       It was assumed that the light post to the right of the exit would remain.

·       The river was situated by the Millstream Pub on the other side of the road.

·       There was a detailed landscaping plan for the site, with any vegetation outside of the site boundary remaining in place. There was an ecological assessment in the report that assessed the development as no, unacceptable harm to the area and would comply with policy.

·       A condition regarding the sites opening hours could be requested.

In response to a point of clarification, the Development and Conservation Manager stated:

·       The site was within flood zone 1 which was the lowest risk of flooding from rivers or sea provided and was outside any flood plain.

·       The river was situated outside of the development site.

·       There were proposals in the report for the impact of heavy rain and ground water.

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

·       The development would dramatically alter the current quaint and calm site.

·       When the site was completed, it was anticipated that there would be 1100 vehicles entering the site daily compared to the current 50.

·       There were eleven traffic hotspots in Hitchin with three traffic hotspots close to this site on the A505. During peak time this road was bumper to bumper.

·       Peak usage of the shop would coincide with peak traffic times.

·       From a recent traffic survey 1 car turned into  ...  view the full minutes text for item 194.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER    

Proposed residential development for 48 dwellings comprising 30 apartments, 14 two storey flats and 4 houses with associated vehicle and cycle parking, open space, access and ancillary works following demolition of existing buildings (as amended by plans and documents received 10th March and 19th May 2023.)

RESOLVED: That application 22/02628/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Planning Obligation, with the applicant agreeing to extend the statutory period in order to complete the agreement if required and the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager with amended conditions 6, 7 and 9, and an addition to informative 5.

“Condition 6:

Before commencement of the highways works and landscaping works relating to this development, additional plans shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which show the provision of pedestrian dropped kerbs and tactile paving across the site at all key junction points / pedestrian desire lines.  The works shall be implemented as approved by this plan before first occupation.

Reason: So that all users of the development can safely, conveniently, and sustainably walk and wheel access the site, in compliance with paragraphs 110-112 of the NPPF, and Inclusive Mobility 2022.

Condition 7:

No dwelling forming part of the development shall be occupied until the bus stop along Westmill Road (120 metres south of Freemans Close) has been upgraded. The upgrade shall include build out of the kerbline to the Westmill Road carriageway edge (i.e. removal of the layby) and raised Kassel kerbing. Before first occupation of any part of the development, this work shall be completed.

Reason: To ensure residents and visitors of the development have the realistic option of travelling by local bus routes, and not a reliance on the private motorcar, in accordance with paragraphs 110 - 112 of the NPPF and in accordance with Policy T1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan (2011-2031.

Condition 9:

Before the development hereby approved is first occupied, all on site vehicular areas, including internal access roads, forecourts, garages, carports and external parking spaces, shall be accessible, surfaced, marked out and fully completed in accordance with the approved plans.  Arrangements shall be made for surface water from the site to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge into the highway.

Reason:  So as to ensure satisfactory parking of vehicles outside highway limits and to minimise danger, obstruction, and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the premises.

Informative 5:

A Sustainable Highway improvements/sustainable transport contribution of £24,640 (index linked to SPONS January 2019) is payable by a Planning Obligation.”

Audio recording – 1 hour 45 minutes 28 seconds

N.B Councillor Nigel Mason declared an interest and left the Chamber at 21:09.

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that:

·       There had been discussions with the applicant regarding the wording of Condition 6 and this would be amended.

·       The applicant agreed to accept amendments to Condition 5.

·       Further amendments were proposed to Condition 6, as well as amendments to Conditions 7 and 9.

·       The Planning Obligation was to be referred to as a Unilateral Undertaking which was a legal deed. Unlike a bilateral S106 agreement these do not have to be entered into by the Local Authority. A Unilateral Undertaking would come into effect when planning permission was granted.

·       The planning permission would then be granted subject to completion of a satisfactory planning obligation with time to extend if required and contain the same Informatives and Conditions as amended as the report. 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/02628/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Steve Jarvis

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

·       When the application was submitted 36 properties were occupied. 9 properties would be moved to flats in phase 2 and the remaining 27 were temporary lets to the Local Authority.

·       There was a shortfall of parking spaces on the site, however this had been considered by Highways and was deemed acceptable, with the use of on street parking and the expected low level of car owners and was highlighted at 4.3.53 of the report.

·       The Condition 2 mentioned on page 97 of the report was a Highways condition and formed Condition 6 of the report recommendations. 

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

·       Whilst he had been supportive of Phase 1 and 2 there were several outstanding concerns regarding this application for Phase 3 of the development.

·       There were concerns that the project missed an opportunity by not using photovoltaic cells (PV) on all of the properties.

·       The report from the applicant was vague and stated that they would consider using solar panel at the next stage.

·       There were concerns regarding the housing mix, as 1 bedroom dwellings were not selling and there were demands for family sized homes.

·       The development had originally been 100% social properties this had now changed to just 40%.

·       The application had no consideration for the disruption to the local area during construction or any countermeasures.

·       The parking provisions were not adequate and related to a 2018 survey.

·       The number of parking spaces included in this application kept changing and was vague.

·       It was not clear if the proposed parking spaces took into account larger vehicles.

·       The lack of parking presented a safety hazard, especially to school children.

The Chair thank  ...  view the full minutes text for item 195.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER    

Proposed residential development for 42 dwellings, access, parking, landscaping and associated works, including provision of an electrical sub-station (as amended by plans and documents received 23.08.2022, 29.09.2022, 20.12.2023 and 27/02/24).

RESOLVED: That application 21/01882/FP be REFUSED planning permission as the proposed development would make insufficient contribution towards meeting the District’s affordable housing needs identified in the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031 and therefore would conflict with the aims of Local Plan Policy HS2.

Audio recording: 2 hour 19 minutes 52 seconds

N.B Councillor Nigel Mason returned to the Chamber at 21:51

In response to declarations of interests from Councillors Michael Muir and Steve Jarvis the Locum Planning Lawyer stated that there was no conflict of interest for County Councillors.

The Development Management Team Leader provided an updated that:

·       There had been three updates published on the 20 March 2024 regarding this matter.

·       There was a typographical error in paragraph 4.2.1 as there were 20 detached dwellings and not 22 as stated.

The Development Management Team Leader presented the report in respect of Application 21/01882/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Steve Jarvis

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Michael Muir

In response to points of clarification, the Development Management Team Leader advised that:

·       There would be 7 dwellings facing onto the Royston Road with a northern strip of landscaping, both of which met the Neighbourhood plan criteria.

·       There was a water course on the eastern boundary, and there would be tree planting to provide boundary screening.

·       There would be a payment to the Council for maintenance of the greenspaces. There was provision off site for play space and a park.

·       There had been two rounds of viability reports produced, with the latest considering the high interest rates and housing market prices. The outcome of this report stated that it was not viable to increase the affordable housing units.

·       The applicant was the County Council, and payments would be made to the District Council ahead of the County Council.

·       There would be a clawback clause as part of the S106 agreement and this would be issued before the decision notice. The viability would need to be reassessed under paragraph 4.3.42 and should it be deemed that it was feasible to build more affordable housing then any, S106 payments would need to be made to North Herts Council before the NHS or the County Council.

·       The Council reviewed the viability assessment and concluded that the viability could not be meet on the site. This was provided as an appendix to the report.

·       The applicant had stated that settle did not want the EV charging points on the affordable houses.

·       Work was still ongoing on the details of the clawback, and only one new viability assessment would be completed, and this would be prior to the start of construction work.

·       The was a function within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which allowed for viability to be assessed. It was noted that affordable housing was the biggest costs for a developer.

·       Policy HS2 of the Local Plan gave the Council discretion in genuine circumstances to vary the percentage of affordable housing.

·       The majority of dwellings would have active EV charging points and only 2 would have passive points.

·       The independent assessor of the viability statement concluded that they agreed with the affordable housing mix put forward by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 196.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER    

Retention of change of use of (equestrian) livery stables to (Sui Generis) car sales and (Use Class B2 general industrial) car servicing.

RESOLVED: That application 23/01259/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio Recording: 3 hour 9 minutes 34 seconds

The Chair advised that Councillor Steve Jarvis 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 Steve Jarvis moved to the public gallery at 22:40

The Senior Planning Officer clarified that the text at paragraph 3.7 suggested that the Conservation Officer was objecting to the application however, at paragraph 4.3.28 of the report it states that concerns had been raised by the Conservation Officer but, there were no heritage reasons to object to this application.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 23/01259/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

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

·       The Parish Council had objected to the original livery application for this site on the grounds that it was inappropriate.

·       The British Horse Society confirmed that the site did not have sufficient land to support a livery with 12 stables.

·       The building built as a garage or feed store under that planning permission was built to a standard far in excess of a livery premises.

·       A motor business opened soon after completion of this buildings and the owners requested retrospective planning permission to change the use of the building, which was refused.

·       A U shaped building was then erected shortly after the planning refusal, the premises were again in excess of those of a livery.

·       A new access to the site was then built on the southern side of the site, and this included the removal of footpath sign.

·       The two buildings meant for a livery are currently being used for motor cars.

·       The intention of the 2015 planning application was flawed and did not comply with the planning policies with respect to intentional unauthorised developments.

·       There were concerns regarding the unauthorised development in green belt land as stated in paragraph 4.3.39 of the report which were pertinent in the case.

·       The Parish Council believed that there was insufficient land for a livery on this site and by the applicants own admissions the buildings were built to a higher standard than those for a livery.

·       It was believed that it was never the intention to use this site for a livery and the original application was a ruse to obtain permission to build two buildings.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Schofield for his presentation and invited Councillor Steve Jarvis to speak against this application. Councillor Jarvis thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·       Permission was granted in 2015 for stables and a feed store on the site.

·       The site and building were never used as stables or built to the conformities of the approved plans.

·       The use of this site for motor cars was inappropriate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 197.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the report.

Audio recording:  3 hours 42 minutes 58 seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager advised the Committee that there had been two planning appeal decisions, both had been dismissed. The inspector noted on the Land west of Therfield decision that the site was more suitable for 3 dwellings, and a new scheme may be submitted.

In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

·       The Wymondley Solar Farm application had been refused by the inspector. However, the Secretary of State had overruled this decision and granted planning permission, as it was felt that the benefits outweighed the heritage harms.

·       The costs to the Council for external, expert support was £91,600 and this excluded the cost for Officers time.

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the report.