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 Councillors Ruth Brown, Bryony May and Emma Fernandes.

Having given due notice, Councillor Tina Bhartwas substituted for Councillor May, Councillor Jon Clayden substituted for Councillor Brown and Councillor Mick Debenham substituted for Councillor Fernandes.

Audio recording – 1 minute 17 seconds

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ruth Brown, Bryony May and Emma Fernandes.

Having given due notice, Councillor Tina Bhartwas substituted for Councillor May, Councillor Jon Clayden substituted for Councillor Brown and Councillor Mick Debenham substituted for Councillor Fernandes.

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 – 1 minute 42 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 confirmed the procedure for moving to debate on an item.

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

(6)   The Chair confirmed the cut off procedure should the meeting proceed at length.

Audio recording – 1 minute 47 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 confirmed the procedure for moving to debate on an item.

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

(6)   The Chair confirmed the cut off procedure should the meeting proceed at length.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

Audio recording – 4 minutes 02 seconds

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

RESOLVED: That application 25/01094/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the removal of Conditions 22 and 23 and a new Condition 22 as follows:

‘Condition 22

No development shall commence until a strategic foul water strategy, or any other solution, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority, in consultation with Anglian Water. This strategy will identify a sustainable point of connection to the public foul network, or any other solution. Prior to occupation, the foul water drainage works must have been carried out in complete accordance with the approved scheme. 

Reason: To protect water quality, prevent pollution and secure sustainable development having regard to paragraphs 7/8 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.’

Audio recording – 4 minutes 46 seconds

N.B. At the commencement of this Item, Councillor Louise Peace advised that she would be speaking as Member Advocate on both applications on the Agenda. She withdrew from the Committee and moved to the public gallery to speak at Member Advocate Objector.

The Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to application 25/01094/FP and advised that:

·         The Conservation Officer had provided a response and confirmed it was not considered unacceptable in heritage terms.

·         Herts Archaeology had provided a response and confirm that the conditions proposed could be removed.

·         Updated plans, referenced as 01, 02 and 03, had been provided which detailed the location of the bin storage area and heat pumps.

·         The Environment Agency had made a representation, which was available online, and had confirmed they had no objection. They confirmed that the sequential test could apply to this site, but having checked with Planning Policy team, this was applied during the allocation of the site within the adopted Local Plan.

·         The applicant was in negotiations with Anglian Water to agree a solution, either on site or through any other connection possible.

·         A resident had raised a concern with regards to the contents of their objection and how this would be covered by the Committee report. The matter raised were regarding issues already covered within the report and would not have changed the recommendation to grant.

The Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of application 25/01094/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

·         Councillor Jon Clayden

·         Councillor Dave Winstanley

·         Councillor Nigel Mason

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

·         Councillor Ian Mantle

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised that:

·         The Environment Agency had not recommended any conditions for inclusion.

·         There was an error at 4.3.19 of the report, and references to the impacts of plot size, loss of light and dominance should be ‘are considered to be acceptable’.

·         The swale was controlled by the landowner.

·         There were two conditions requiring a Construction Management Plan, one from Highways to address the deliveries and access routes to the site and one from Environmental Health to address mitigations to construction nuisance.

·         The Ecologist had noted that there would be a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) shortage on site of 1.57, which was to be secured through off site credits and this was secured through the standards BNG condition.

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

·         Conditions which required works to be completed would not be brought back to the Committee to consider, as details reserved by condition were delegated to Officers to determine.

·         The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) had provided conditions for inclusion, therefore they do not believe further information was required at this stage to determine the application.

·         When details on these conditions were submitted, the LLFA would be consulted again and, subject to their approval of the details, these would be approved.

·         If the LLFA objected to the details provided,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

RESOLVED: That application 25/01790/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with additional Conditions 15 and 16 as follows:

‘Condition 15

Construction shall not begin until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme must prioritise the use of source control Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in consideration of the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS and demonstrate no increase in flood risk as a result of the Proposed Development with sufficient supporting evidence provided to support its viability including supporting calculations for the 100% AEP (1 in 1 year), 3.33% AEP (1 in 30 year), 3.33% AEP (1 in 30 year) plus climate change, the 1% AEP (1 in 100 year) and the 1% AEP (1 in 100) plus climate change critical storms. Infiltration testing shall be carried out to inform the detailed drainage design; if infiltration is not viable, a detailed drainage strategy based on discharging to the ordinary watercourse south of Snailswell Lane at the greenfield runoff rate shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

Reason: To ensure the flood risk is adequately addressed and not increased in accordance with NPPF and Policies of North Hertfordshire District Council.

Condition 16

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it shall be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment shall then be undertaken by a competent person, in accordance with BS10175:2011. A written report of the findings should be forwarded for approval to the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of remedial measures a verification report shall be prepared that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out. No part of the development should be occupied until all remedial and validation works are approved in writing.

Reason: To protect human health and to ensure that no future investigation is required under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.’

Audio recording – 1 hour 30 minutes 24 seconds

The Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to application 25/01790/FP and advised that:

·         A response had been received from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and an additional condition had been proposed, as outlined in the supplementary document.

·         Herts Archaeology had made representation and advised that they had no comments to make.

·         An additional Condition 16 had been proposed by Environmental Health relating to actions to be taken if contamination is identified during works.

·         There was a discrepancy identified on the mapping system, which had the neighbouring property labelled in the wrong position and with the incorrect spelling. However, the submitted plans were correct.

The Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of application 25/01790/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

·         Councillor Val Bryant

·         Councillor Martin Prescott

·         Councillor Jon Clayden

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised that:

·         A BOAT was a ‘byway open to all traffic’ and was the responsibility of Herts County Council Right of Way, rather than Highways.

·         The site was originally considered as not being inappropriate development in the greenbelt, but it was subsequently assessed to comprise development on greybelt land, as described in the submitted planning statement. Officers agreed with this assessment and there were no strong reasons for refusal of the application.

·         The site was considered as limited infill within an existing village.

·         As a greybelt assessment had been made alongside the infill consideration, it was prudent to assess both aspects.

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

·         The BOAT would be maintained by Herts County Council as the relevant authority.

·         Whilst the wider parcel of land to the north would be considered greenbelt, the site was considered as greybelt as it did not move the boundary further north than already existing properties.

The Chair invited the first Public Objector, Mr Phillip Laws to speak against the application. Mr Laws thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

·         There were three main concerns with this application, these were the highways issues, the character of the development and the loss of landscape.

·         The site would be accessed by a BOAT, which was essentially a rural track, not up to the standard of normal highways.

·         The proposal is to encourage sustainable transport, but cycling to the site was extremely challenging.

·         The room sizes on the plans would suggest a fourth bedroom could be created, which would further increase traffic movements and the BOAT was not safe or suitable for access.

·         The lane was rural in nature and allowing this infill would suburbanise the character of the lane and would establish a principle of development.

·         An apple tree on the site had already been removed and this loss of landscape was contrary to polices of the Local Plan.

The Chair thanked Mr Laws for their presentation and invited the second  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

To update Members on appeals lodged and any decisions made.

The Principle Planning Officer provided an update on Planning Appeals.

Audio recording – 2 hours 30 minutes 54 seconds

The Principle Planning Officer provided an update on Planning Appeals and highlighted that:

·       An appeal had been allowed at Ickleford Primary School for the installation of a bike shed, with the Inspector concluding that there was a neutral impact on the Conservation Area.

·       An appeal had been dismissed for a retrospective application for a box dormer extension at a property in Graveley, with the Inspector concluding that there was sufficient harm to the character and appearance of the area.

In response to a question from Councillor Tom Tyson, the Principle Planning Officer advised that it would be for the Enforcement team to consider the next steps relating to the box dormer extension, but action could potentially require restoration to the original condition.