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 Councillor Tom Tyson.

Having given due notice Councillor Jon Clayden substituted for Councillor Tyson.

Having given due notice, Councillors Ian Mantle and Mick Debenham substituted for the Labour vacancies on the Committee for this meeting.

Audio recording – 3 minutes 44 seconds

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Tom Tyson.

Having given due notice, Councillor Jon Clayden substituted for Councillor Tyson.

Having given due notice , Councillors Ian Mantle and Mick Debenham substituted for the Labour vacancies on the Committee for this meeting.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on the 21 March  and 11 April 2024.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meetings of the Committee held on 21 March and 11 April 2024 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

Audio Recording – 4 minutes 10 seconds

Councillor Elizabeth Dennis, as Chair, proposed and Councillor Nigel Mason seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21 March and 11 April 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 – 5 minutes 36 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 – 6 minutes 0 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.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

Audio recording – 8 minutes 15 seconds

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Lower innings, associated interbal road, parking, landscaping, amenity space and open space.

RESOLVED: That application 23/00563/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio Recording - 9 minutes 50 seconds

Councillor Nigel Mason declared an interest and moved to the public gallery.

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that:

·       Section 2.1 reference to policy HD6 is incorrect and the correct policy HD3 which is considered in the report.

·       Section 4.3.1 report to defer to enable applicant to review application to access point to Southeast of site together with wording on Condition 8 with reference to cycle path and pedestrian network review and addressing reasons for deferral.

·       It was noted that Alexander Greaves is incorrectly referred to as Kings Counsel rather than Counsel.

·       Section 4.3.16 should read “highway code does not seek to address”

·       Section 4.3.25 – it was noted the monitoring fees are missing from table.

·       The Applicant and agent had agreed to pre commencement conditions.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 23/00563/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following members asked questions:

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Sadie Billing

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

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

·       All properties in the development would be fitted with solar panels.

·       There would be 21 affordable homes.

·       A maintenance company would be responsible for the upkeep of the communal areas and play area and provisions would be made to monitor the management of the open spaces in the S106 agreement.

·       The main access to the development would be via Oughtonhead Lane. Members were concerned about the disabled access at this point. It was not proposed to make many changes to the Lane as this would alter the character of the area. There was still concern that this is the only vehicular entrance to the site.

·       Safety measures would be set out in the Construction Management Plan, and this was covered by Condition 7.

·       A letter had been sent by the applicant to the occupants of the management company regarding request for access via Bowlers End. This was again refused as this is a private road.

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

·       Traffic from the development was estimated to be around 233 vehicles per day, equating to 27 per hour in the daytime and 30 per hour in the evening.

·       Roads surrounding the site, including Oughtonhead Lane, Westbury Close and Redhill Road were all heavily congested.

·       Concerns were raised over air pollution in this area.

·       There were many pedestrians and cyclists in the area of Lower Innings and Redhill Road.

·       The crossover on Oughtonhead Lane was deemed to be against the Highway Code, as it would not give priority to horse riders, pedestrians and cyclists. There would be a need for prominent signs on the crossing.

·       The sight lines had been missed from the technical drawings.

·       Construction traffic would be exiting the site via Lower Innings, which was disappointing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Reserved Mattersapplication forapproval ofthe detailsof theappearance,landscaping, layout and scaleof thedevelopment for80 dwellingsincluding streets, carparking, openspace andassociated works(pursuant tooutline application  17/01464/1  granted  02.11.2022)  (as  amended  by  plans  anddocuments received 30th October, 29th November, 20th and 22nd December2023 and 4th January, 7th February, 7th March and 18th April 2024). 

RESOLVED: That application 23/00743/RM be GRANTED planning permission subject to the removal of Condition 2 and the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording: 57 minutes 48 seconds

The Chair clarified for Members that outline planning permission had already been granted for residential development on this site including details of access. This was a Reserved Matters application to deal with the details relating to layout, landscaping, appearance, and scale.

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that:

·       The applicant is Croudace Homes Ltd.

·       An extension to the statutory period had been granted to 19 June 2024.

·       Outline planning permission was granted on 2 November 2022, not 2011.

·       Condition 2 should be removed as it duplicates a condition on the outline application.

·       Granting “Planning permission” should read granting “Reserved Matters details”. The recommendation in 10.1 should be worded as follows: “That the Reserved Matters details are GRANTED subject to the following conditions.”

·       Further resident objections had been received regarding concerns about the boundary of the site and possible Japanese Knotweed, which had been covered by a landscaping condition requiring details of boundary treatment to be submitted and approved and with regard to Japanese Knotweed the applicant has been notified and no objection had been received on the application from Herts Ecology.

·       There were concerns raised that the 6-metre buffers to much of the hedgerow network endorsed by Herts Ecology was not consistent with the policy which states that 12 metres should be applied.

·       Whilst Local Planning Policy stated the provision of 12m buffers of complimentary habitat around wildlife sites, trees and hedgerows should be provided it was not an absolute requirement of policy.

·       A further representation was received from a neighbour regarding the protection of the wildlife on the boundary hedgerow and asked if the Council would consider asking that the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) offsetting was planted onsite. It was the officer’s understanding that at least 10% BNG could be provided on site, although a condition was recommended requiring an updated Biodiversity Metric.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 23/00743/RM supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following members asked questions:

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Micheal Muir

·       Councillor Jon Clayden

·       Councillor Louise Peace

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

·       The 10% biodiversity net gain had been secured on site. This was not clear in the outline application when it was submitted. The initial application was granted before the requirement for BNG.

·       Highways initially objected to this application, but minor changes had now been made to the layout and they had withdrawn their objection.

·       Proposals for Solar Panels and Heat Pumps would form part of the Energy and Sustainability statement required by condition on the outline planning permission.

·       Whilst most of the trees to be planted were situated in communal areas, some were sited in residential gardens and there was no condition which could be added to ensure that these would not be felled over time.

·       The 12-metre buffer was deemed not to be required on the whole site. The parameter plan had been approved as part  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Ground  mounted  solar  photovoltaic  (PV)  farm  including  battery  energystorage; continued agriculturaluse, ancillaryinfrastructure, securityfencing, landscaping provision, ecologicalenhancements andassociated works(as amended). 

RESOLVED: That application 22/00741/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording: 2 hours 21 minutes and 35 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/00741/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

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

·       The construction traffic to the site would be limited to two articulated lorries per day and this would be enforced by a condition. If the traffic was thought to be more, the application would be referred to the Enforcement team.

·       The nearest grid connection point was 5k from the site.

·       There was minimal hedge removal proposed for access to the site.

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

·       The Bygrave action group was set up by the Parish Council and would support a solar farm in Bygrave, as long as it was in the correct location.

·       This site would dominate the area, which was too large and exposed. The field is grade 2 arable farmland which would be lost.

·       The adjacent roads were not safe for construction traffic, with heavy traffic on the nearby A507 and blind bends on smaller roads.

·       There would also be a constant humming noise from the site, with no grid connection plan.

The Chair thanked Mr Colegrave for his presentation and invited Ms Julie Stothard to speak against the application. Ms Stothard thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·       Last year was commented that too little weight had been given to the impact on the landscape, together with the residential amenities and risk from construction traffic and fire.

·       Biodiversity net gain had been overstated.

·       The harms of this development clearly outweigh the benefits.

·       This type of use of the best and most versatile land should be avoided as much as possible and high-grade agricultural land is required to ensure future food security.

·       In December 2023, Council approved for consultation a draft Supplementary Planning Document on sustainability. This development fails on all the counts in the document.

·       This proposed development does not comply with published health and safety guidance.

·       In November 2023, the Council refused an application for a solar farm at Sperberry Hill. There can be no reason to refuse Sperberry Hill and approve the Bygrave application.

The Chair thanked Ms Stothard for her presentation and invited Mr Mark Goddard to speak against the application. Mr Goddard thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·       Bygrave was a small quiet village with beautiful views, dog walkers, cyclist and horse riders. Their enjoyment would be destroyed by loss of views and the noise from the solar farm.

·       In 2017 an application for a microbrewery was rejected in the same area. The design and scale were deemed inappropriate to visual amenities. The solar  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER 

Two  storey  side  extension  and  single  storey  rear  extension.  Insertion  of rooflights  to  existing  outbuilding  and  erection  of  detached single  garagefollowing demolition of existing garage. 

RESOLVED: That contrary to the officer recommendation, application 23/01749/FPH be GRANTED planning permission and listed building consent. As the applicant proposed changes to the external materials in an informal submission, the resolution was subject to the following condition to be attached to both the permission and listed building consent:

Notwithstanding the materials shown on the submitted plans and application form, details and/or samples of all external materials to be used for the works, hereby granted consent, shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any works are commenced.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the listed building to which this consent relates and to comply with Policies SP13 and HE1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.

Audio recording: 4 Hours 6 minutes and 20 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that:

·       Documents were on the website prior to the meeting including a letter from the applicant and a response from the planning officer.

·       The development would lead to less than substantial harm to heritage assets and there were no public benefits that outweighed the harm identified.

·       The Council acknowledged the letter from the applicant, and the proposed changes, they are not for consideration, and it remained the original scheme for determination.

·       The changes in the letter from the applicant were that the development was still 2 storey, but slightly reduced in height and set further back from the front elevation.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 23/01749/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

There were no questions for the planning officer.

The Chair invited Parish Councillor Nicola Price to speak in support of the application. Councillor Price thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·       Councillor Price was showing support for this application as a Parish Councillor and a resident of the village.

·       The village was very protective of its area and residents are usually vocal about schemes that harm the historic aspects of the village. However, this application agrees with the historic aspect and in keeping with the charm of the village.

·       Lilley is a very small village and needs young families. It was required to house young families in the area in properties that could sustain this.

·       Lilley Conservation Charter set out in 2020 notes key properties in the area, a large amount were detached or semi-detached and enhances the village. It was believed this scheme adhered to the criteria.

·       Removal of the garage would increase the area between houses.

·       The materials to be used would enhance and retain 45 West Street for its future.

·       The applicants had sympathetically restored the property and maintained its original character.

·       The need for a third bedroom with a growing family was very apparent. The current second bedroom has a very small floor space and was restricted by height.

·       The applicants are keen members of the community and would be a shame to see them have to move on from the area.

·       The direct neighbours and members of the community have approached the Parish Council, all in support of the application, and had urged the Parish Council to back this application.

·       The proposed extension would not be visible to passers-by, demonstrating the minimal impact on the conservation area.

·       Identical cottages in the area had also had planning permission for similar adaptations.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

In response to points raised, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that no amended plans were submitted to the planning department, who only received a letter responding to comments. The Planning officer would not accept the principal of a 2-storey side extension to the property.

The Chair thanked Councillor Price  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER 

Two  storey  side  extension  and  single  storey  rear  extension.  Insertion  of rooflights  to  existing  outbuilding  and  erection  of  detached single  garagefollowing demolition of existing garage. 

RESOLVED: That contrary to the officer recommendation, application 23/01749/FPH be GRANTED planning permission and listed building consent. As the applicant proposed changes to the external materials in an informal submission, the resolution was subject to the following condition to be attached to both the permission and listed building consent:

Notwithstanding the materials shown on the submitted plans and application form, details and/or samples of all external materials to be used for the works, hereby granted consent, shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any works are commenced.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the listed building to which this consent relates and to comply with Policies SP13 and HE1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.

Councillor Ruth Brown proposed and Councillor Michael Muir seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That contrary to the officer recommendation, application 23/01749/FPH be GRANTED planning permission and listed building consent.

“Notwithstanding the materials shown on the submitted plans and application form, details and/or samples of all external materials to be used for the works, hereby granted consent, shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any works are commenced.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the listed building to which this consent relates and to comply with Policies SP13 and HE1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.”

REPORT  OF  THE  DEVELOPMENT  AND  CONSERVATION  MANAGER

Erection of six dwellings with associated access, landscaping and parking (as amended by plans received 06/02/24 and 15/02/24). 

RESOLVED: That application 22/01687/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio Recording: 4 hours 44 minutes and 28 seconds

N.B. Councillor Louise Peace declared an interest and moved to the public gallery.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/01687/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Jon Clayden

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

·       The size of the parking spaces in the car ports are of sufficient size.

·       Heat pumps would be installed in the properties, but no solar panels.

·       The local bus service was a regular service.

·       Condition 13 recommended that the applicant would need to provide a land and ecology maintenance plan to ensure the biodiversity net gain was met. The submission will be consulted with the ecologist or Hertfordshire County Council Ecologist for net gain provided.

·       The mix of properties was considered satisfactory.

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

·       The development was outside the village boundary and did not follow the aesthetics. It would also set a precedence for future development.

·       Large 3 and 4 bedroomed houses were not needed in the area.

·       There was a large reliance on cars, there is no shop or school.

·       Buses were not frequent and did not run on a Sunday.

·       There was increasing number of cars on the roads, together with parked cars with a limited visibility.

·       A growing number of children walk and bike ride to school and were currently safe around their homes.

·       The local sewage system had been having problems with being exasperated.

·       Concerns over the local Grade 1 listed church which could be damaged during construction.

·       Local wildlife was thriving and diverse, with bats and owls both breeding.

·       Holwell would not benefit from this site, as there would be no financial gain as the development is too small for S106 money and will just cause disruption.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair thanked Parish Cllr Hart for her presentation and invited Councillor Louise Peace to speak against the application. Councillor Peace thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·       There was objection to the development of the location, habitat loss, road safety and parking issues.

·       The ecological survey was an abundance of wildlife.  It was noted that the biodiversity Net gain calculations had not yet been provided.

·       There were very few facilities in the village, no shop, pub or junior school. There was a drive to either Pirton or Hitchin for a secondary school.

·       There were already children standing on the bus to school, with additional pressure on the service and no S106 money.

·       There was a high impact on limited parking provisions, with areas on the roads full of parked cars.

·       90-degree bends in some places had the local residents considering  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

RESOLVED: That the Committee agreed to defer the items for information from the Appeals Tracker to the next meeting.

RESOLVED: That the Committee agreed to defer the items for information from the Appeals Tracker to the next meeting.

The meeting closed at 12.55am