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 Louise Peace.

Audio recording – 1 minute 47 seconds

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Louise Peace.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 13 June 2024.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 13 June 2024 be approved, as amended, as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

Audio Recording – 2 minutes 15 seconds

Councillor Ruth Brown advised of a minor error in the second bullet point on page 17 of the minutes, where the sentence required the addition of the word ‘that’ to make the sentence read properly.

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

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 13 June 2024 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 49 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 of a change to the order of the published agenda and Agenda Item 7 would follow Agenda Item 8.

Audio recording – 3 minutes 55 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 of a change to the order of the published agenda and Agenda Item 7 would follow Agenda Item 8.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

Audio recording – 8 minutes 10 seconds

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

RESOLVED: That application 22/03231/FP be REFUSED planning permission, contrary to the officer recommendation, subject to the following reasons:

(1)   The proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt that would be harmful to its openness.  The Council considers that the benefits of the scheme, including the wider environmental benefits associated with the increased production of renewable energy (pursuant to paragraph 156 of the National Planning Policy Framework December 2023), would not amount to very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm. As such the proposal would be contrary to paragraphs 152 and 153 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SP5 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031.

(2)   The proposal would result in harm to the rural character and appearance of the application site and the surrounding area with a cumulative impact as a result of other major development in the vicinity. Whilst measures are proposed to mitigate the impact of the proposed development, and the proposal would not be permanent, there would nevertheless be harm over a long period to rural character and appearance of the area, including the visual amenities of users of the local public footpaths. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies NE2 and NE12 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031, which seek to avoid unacceptable harm to landscape character and appearance.

Audio recording – 9 minutes 50 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that:

·       There had been four representations from neighbouring residents and Kings Walden Parish Council.

·       In relation to the map showing major developments in the area, the land associated with Luton airport is actually detailed as being allocated for replacement open space and habitat creation, as detailed in paragraph 4.10.40 of the report.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/03231/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following members asked questions:

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Sadie Billing

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

·       The solar panels would be visible from a localised context, but not from a distance. 

·       The solar panels, batteries and water tanks would all be between 2-3 metres high.

·       The solar panels beyond the yellow field would not be visible, with Darley Wood in the distance, from footpath 43.

·       There would be security wire fencing with posts 2.2 meters high and a 10cm clearing at the bottom for wildlife.

·       There would be 30-meter-high CCTV poles with restricted movements as detailed in Condition 16 of the report.

·       No lighting would be installed.

·       The electricity produced from the solar panels would go into the National Grid.

·       The right of way between the fencing would be 10 meters wide with open sides where possible as detailed in Condition 13 of the report.

·       Fire safety had been incorporated into Condition 14.

·       The land at present was being used for arable rotation.

In response to questions, the Highways Officer advised that:

·       Construction vehicles would come from the Luton area, arriving via Darley Road and Wandon End Road and would be kept away from Tea Green.

·       As the construction period was only for 6-9 months any impact to the area would be limited.

·       Deliveries to the site would be regulated throughout the day.

·       Details of the variety of vehicles and number of traffic movements were set out in Table 5 of the report. 

·       A condition could be added if required to limit vehicles entering or leaving the construction site to ensure the safety of children being taken to and collected from school.

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

·       He had lived in Tea Green for 47 years and was the Director of a family business which employed 53 local people.

·       No consideration had been given to his staff as the construction company entrance was close to his staff car park.

·       There would be 2,300 HGV two-way movements over the 6-9 month construction period. There would also be 242 daily movements from all his vehicles.

·       The width of the road near the construction site would cause problems with the passing of traffic.

·       This application was a conflict with the strategic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

RESOLVED: That application 23/02719/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the following addition of a new Condition 22, to read:

“Condition 22

Notwithstanding the approved plans, the development shall not include the ‘Electric Fob Entry Gate’ shown on drawing ‘19359 1002A Planning Layout’ (excluding the gate pillars and pedestrian gate).

Reason: In the interests of maximising physical and social accessibility, and character and appearance.  To comply with Policy D1 of the Local Plan.”

Audio recording – 2 hours 34 minutes 26 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer gave a verbal update and advised that there had been no objections to this application from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA).

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 23/02719/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions:

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

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

·       There was currently no permanent structure on the site.

·       This development had been designed as gated with a main gate to the development being operated by a fob.

·       The access road would be privately maintained by a management company.

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

·       This application was a cross boundary development between North Herts District Council and Welwyn Hatfield Council.

·       It was expected that Welwyn Hatfield Council would be making a delegated decision regarding this application. 

The Chair invited Ms Ros Naylor to speak against the application. Ms Naylor thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·       There were concerns regarding the impact of extra traffic in the area on cyclists and horse riders.

·       There were two large livery yards in the area and several equestrian yards which used this as a crossing point.

·       Approximately 325 dwellings were built in Codicote last year which added to traffic already using the B656 and the single-track lanes.

·       There should be additional horse warning signs and a speed camera in this area.

There were no points of clarification for Members.

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

·       The original application had been refused and this was overturned by appeal in September 2021.

·       This application was an inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would cause harm to the character of the area.

·       This application was contrary to Policies SP1, SP2, SP5 and D1 of the Local Plan.

·       Codicote Parish Council were also opposed to this application.

·       This application presented further erosion of the Green Belt in Codicote.

·       The proposed development did not support the infrastructure of Codicote.

There were no points of clarification for Members.

The Chair invited Mr Julian Smith to speak in support of the application. Mr Smith thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·       He ran a small family company and had purchased this site with the aim to uplift the design to a high standard.

·       The increase in volume was due to changing the garages to double instead of single to improve their visual appearance. 

·       All 7 dwellings would have timber garages, clay tiles and Flemish brickwork to fit in with the area.

·       The old buildings had been removed as they were dangerous and £100K had been spent on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

RESOLVED: That application 23/02572/S73 be GRANTED subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 3 hours 23 minutes 23 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer gave a verbal update and advised that:

·       There had been one variation made in Condition 2.

·       The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) had provided comments in an update and they had received no objections to this application.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 23/02572/S73 supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

Councillor Amy Allen proposed and Councillor Ruth Brown seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 23/02572/S73 be GRANTED subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

The Development and Conservation Manager provided an update on Planning Appeals.

Audio recording – 3 hours 29 minutes 10 seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report entitled Planning Appeals and informed the Committee that one appeal had been lodged.

The Development and Conservation Manager provided an update on site allocation BA4 which the Committee had refused to grant planning permission. The applicant had since lodged an appeal and had requested for this to be via a public inquiry. A response had been provided to say that a hearing would be more appropriate and a decision would be provided by the Planning Inspectorate. The Development and Conservation Manager advised Members that he would provide an update on the outcome.

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the report.