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 Sadie Billing, Emma Fernandes, Nigel Mason and Caroline McDonnell.

Having given due notice, Councillor Val Bryant substituted for Councillor Billing, Councillor Mick Debenham substituted for Councillor Mason and Councillor Jon Clayden substituted for Councillor McDonnell.

Audio recording – 1 minute 18 seconds

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sadie Billing, Emma Fernandes, Nigel Mason and Caroline McDonnell.

Having given due notice, Councillor Val Bryant substituted for Councillor Billing, Councillor Mick Debenham substituted for Councillor Mason and Councillor Jon Clayden substituted for Councillor McDonnell.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 20 March 2025.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 20 March, as amended, be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

Audio Recording – 2 minutes 2 seconds

Councillor Ruth Brown advised that under Paragraph 3 of Minute 145, ‘23/02935/FP’ should be amended to ‘23/02935/OP’.

Councillor Elizabeth Dennis, as Chair, proposed, as amended, and Councillor Ruth Brown seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 20 March be approved, as amended, 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 35 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 advised that Section 4.8.23(a) of the Constitution applied to the meeting.

Audio recording – 3 minutes 39 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 advised that Section 4.8.23(a) of the Constitution applied to the meeting.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

There was no public participation at this meeting.

Audio recording – 4 minutes 27 seconds

There was no public participation at this meeting.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Reserved Matters application for approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for outline application 22/02942/OP granted 18.09.2024 for 10 dwellings.

RESOLVED: That Application 24/02624/RM be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the additional Condition 5, as follows:

‘Condition 5:

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended no development as set out in Class B of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order, (or any subsequent Statutory Instrument which revokes, amends and/or replaces those provisions) shall be carried out without first obtaining a specific planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Given the nature of this development, the Local Planning Authority considers that development which would normally be "permitted development" should be retained within planning control in the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.’

Audio recording – 4 minutes 35 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 24/02624/RM and advised that:

·             An amended landscaping plan which included boundary treatment along the north, south and west parts of the site in the form of a 1.8m close board fence had been received.

·             Because of this, the recommendation at paragraph 4.3.26 in the report to add a boundary treatment condition was no longer necessary.

·             They had received an amended site plan with a two-meter-wide green corridor along the northern boundary of the site as required by condition 8 of the outline permission. The Highways Authority had raised no objection to these details.

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 24/02624/RM supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

·             Councillor Ruth Brown

·             Councillor Louise Peace

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

• Permitted Development Rights (PDR) had not been withdrawn from the outline permission for the development.
• The developer had submitted a pre-construction energy and sustainability statement as part of the outline permission which included proposals for solar panels and ground source heat pumps on the development.
• A swept path drawing had been received and a means of access had been included within the outline permission. 

Councillor Ruth Brown proposed to grant permission, and this was seconded by Councillor Ian Mantle.

Councillor Ruth Brown proposed the amendments, and these were seconded by Councillor Louise Peace, as follows:

The following Members took part in the debate on the amendment:

·             Councillor Ruth Brown

·             Councillor Louise Peace

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Mick Debenham

·             Councillor Val Bryant

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·             Councillor Amy Allen

The following points were raised as part of the debate on the amendment:

·             Having developments in the district with a high percentage of 3-bed dwellings and 1 to 2-bed dwellings was desirable and the already undesirable housing mix of all 4-bed dwellings on the proposed development would be made worse if they were developed into 5-bed or 6-bed dwellings.

·             The affordability of the properties would be impacted if they were extended into 5-bed or 6-bed dwellings.

·             Adding one or two bedrooms to each property would increase the number of vehicles used by future occupiers which would lead to more traffic and potentially congestion in the area.

·             Removing PDR would not stop future occupiers from applying for planning permission to increase the number of bedrooms in the dwellings.  

·             Roof extensions, particularly dormers would impact the appearance of the dwellings and cause harm in this aspect to the existing site.

·             There was more concern over additional bedrooms being added through the enlargement of roof space rather than outbuildings or extensions as they would need planning permission if they were larger than a certain size.  

In response to points raised in the debate on the amendment, the Principle Planning Officer advised that:

·             PDR only came into effect once a dwelling had been occupied, not during the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 162.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Conversion of Node Court to 8 no. dwellings. Conversion of Midden building to residential and the erection of 6 no. terraced dwelling-houses as development to facilitate the restoration of Node Court together with associated car parking, landscaping, boundary treatment and ancillary works (Amended Plans received 30 August 2024).

RESOLVED: That Application 23/00407/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the resolution of negotiation of a S106 or legal agreement which secures the heritage benefits, which will be negotiated post-resolution; and Conditions and Informative as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with added condition as may be required in association with the S106 or legal agreement, and the following additional Condition 25, as follows:

‘Condition 25:

Prior to Occupation, vehicle to vehicle visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 25 metres to the both directions shall be provided and permanently maintained. Within which, there shall be no obstruction to visibility between 600 mm and 2.0 metres above the carriageway level. These measurements shall be taken from the intersection of the centre line of the permitted access with the edge of the carriageway of the highway respectively into the application site and from the intersection point along the edge of the carriageway.

Reason: To ensure construction of a satisfactory development and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).’

Audio recording – 31 minutes 6 seconds

The Chair advised Members that the reports for Applications 23/00407/FP and 23/00408/LBC would be presented together.

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members that a representation had been received from a neighbour of the site and advised that:

·             Their main concern with the proposed development was the state of Drivers End Lane.

·             They described the road as difficult to navigate with few passing places, having no pathway for pedestrians and being frequently flooded.

·             They were looking forward to seeing Node Court restored, but before this could happen, the vehicle site access would have to be improved. 

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the reports in respect of Applications 23/00407/FP and 23/00408/LBC supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

·             Councillor Jon Clayden

·             Councillor Louise Peace

·             Councillor Tom Tyson

·             Councillor Ruth Brown

·             Councillor Val Bryant

·             Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·             Councillor Ian Mantle

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

·             No alternative proposals had been put forward for the use of the site.

·             The terraced houses would cause harm to the listed building in its setting, therefore they were undersized and uncompliant with policy to limit the damage.  

·             Highways had not provided any conditions for the application.

·             Where the site was previously used for commercial purposes, traffic was concentrated at certain times, whereas traffic would be spread throughout the day if the site was to be used residentially as proposed.

·             S106 contributions from the developer would be waived in exchange for the district gaining a listed building.

·             The width of Drivers End Lane was unknown.

·             There was no information on the volume or type of construction vehicles that would be deployed during the construction phase of the development.

·             Drivers End Lane had several residencies along it.

·             Whether the apartments would be sold on a freehold or leasehold basis would not be for the Council to decide as it was outside their remit.

In response to questions, the Principle Planning Officer advised that:

·             Highways had not wished to attend the meeting and had not provided conditions for the application, however, they recommended that the visibility splay condition in the addendum should be implemented.

·             If the Council decided to enforce a condition on the application for the developer to provide a construction traffic management plan, this would need approval from Highways. However, they had objected to the application in principle and would be unlikely to agree this which could cause problems for the developer going forward.

·             The objection from Highways was based on the visibility splays and the site location which they deemed to be unsustainable as it was car dependent.

·             An objection to construction traffic resulting from the application had not been raised by Highways, but unless they recommended a condition on traffic management, they would be unlikely to support it. 

·             Highways agreed that vehicle movement on Driver End Lane would be greater if the site was used commercially rather than residentially as proposed.   

Councillor Martin Prescott proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 163.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

External and internal alterations to facilitate the restoration and conversion of Node Court to provide 8 no. dwellings and to provide 1 no. dwelling at the Midden as amended by plan received on 4 December 2024.

RESOLVED: That Application 23/00408/LBC be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with amendments to Conditions 2 and 3, as follows:

‘Condition 2:

Node Court together with The Midden shall be re-thatched using Norfolk Reed with wheat straw ridges and not combed wheat reed unless otherwise agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that special regard is paid to protecting the special architectural and historic interest and integrity of this grade II listed building under Section 16(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Policy HE1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 - 2031.

Condition 3:

Prior to the occupation of any units, the thatched walkway linking Node Court with The Midden shall be refurbished and confirmation of the completed works shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that special regard is paid to protecting the special architectural and historic interest and integrity of this grade II listed building under Section 16(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Policy HE1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 - 2031.’

Audio recording – 1 hour 18 minutes 29 seconds

Councillor Martin Prescott proposed to grant permission with the amended Conditions 2 and 3 and this was seconded by Councillor Amy Allen and following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That Application 23/00408/LBC be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with amendments to Conditions 2 and 3, as follows:

‘Condition 2:

Node Court together with The Midden shall be re-thatched using Norfolk Reed with wheat straw ridges and not combed wheat reed unless otherwise agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that special regard is paid to protecting the special architectural and historic interest and integrity of this grade II listed building under Section 16(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Policy HE1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 - 2031.

Condition 3:

Prior to the occupation of any units, the thatched walkway linking Node Court with The Midden shall be refurbished and confirmation of the completed works shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that special regard is paid to protecting the special architectural and historic interest and integrity of this grade II listed building under Section 16(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Policy HE1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 - 2031.’

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

To update Members on appeals lodged and any decisions made.

The Principal Planning Officer provided an update on Planning Appeals.

Audio recording – 1 hour 20 minutes 4 seconds

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report entitled ‘Planning Appeals’ and advised that:

·             One appeal had been allowed on a householder application for an outbuilding and permitted development rights had been referenced in the comments from the Inspector which they would take on board for future decisions.

·             Another appeal had been dismissed on a new detached dwelling which showed that small sites could be defended by the Council on the grounds of character and appearance.