Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 23/01198/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 1 hour 54 minutes 30 seconds

N.B Councillor Nigel Mason returned to Chamber at 21:24

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 23/01198/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Sean Nolan

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

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

·       The application was a requirement of the properties building control condition, that required a place for a fire engine to park at a point that was within 45 metres of the furthest point of the building, and the application did not conflict with any planning policies.

·       They had attended the site and made a visual inspection and believed there were potential areas available to house the benches and washing lines.

·       North Herts District Council were the applicant in this matter and as the application had objections the application be decided at a Planning Control Committee meeting, as outlined in the Constitution.

In response to a point of clarification, Councillor David Levett stated that the matter had been discussed at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The building had been a block of flats and then the offices of Careline and now it had been converted back to flats and, as building regulations had been updated, they now required fire brigade access.

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

·       Removing the parking bays and building was not an improvement for tenants and would remove a substantial part of the communal area.

·       Three trees would need to be removed for this application and this would hinder the safe passageway of tenants with mobility issues.

·       Parking for a fire engine had always been available from the existing car park area.

·       The proposed fire brigade parking bay would be closer to an tenant that suffered with asthma.

·       The changes to the 2019 building regulations required access from 45 metres from the building, which should have been considered in the original conversion planning application approved in August 2020.

·       It was absurd to move the tenant facilities when this error was down to a lack of due diligence.

·       There were other suitable alternatives to this scheme, and access sites for a fire engine including on the road at the back of Harkness Court.

·       The item should be deferred for a site visit to view the limited space and to explore alternative solutions.

Ms Casserly thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       There had been very little communication concerning the change of use from Careline to four flats and the requirement of two parking spaces for four flats.

·       The tenants pay a service charge for the communal gardens which is regularly used and cared for.

·       There were no alternative sites for the washing lines and the parking space were all used and allocated.

·       They were informed that four new allocated spaces would be added to the St Faith Church car park.

·       Overall, the tenants felt that they had not been fully consulted regarding this application.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor David Levett, Ms Casserly stated that the communal garden formed part of their service charge.

The Chair thanked Mr Bentick and Ms Casserly for their presentations.

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed the application and Councillor David Levett seconded the application and requested a reinforcement of recommendation 3 and to add “in consultation with the residents”.

In response to the requested recommendation from Councillor David Levett, the Principal Planning Officer stated:

·       Adding a condition to consult with the residents would be unique and there was no legal reason as to why this could not be added.

·       A condition could be added that the applicant undertakes a consultation exercise with the residents and submits the results as part of the condition.

·       The additional suggestion would be formed from the results of communicating with the residents.

In response to the requested recommendation from Councillor David Levett, the Legal Advisor stated:

·       Any planning condition would need to be precise and enforceable, to avoid any planning obligation being overridden by public rights.

·       This may be a tenancy matter and not a planning matter, which were separate issues.

·       The applicant was lacking in communication, which had generated the concerns of the tenants.

·       An appropriate condition would need to be precise and enforceable, and an appropriate mechanism would need to be in place.

Councillor Val Bryant commented that it was clear from the comments from the objectors on the Planning Portal that the tenants had been consulted.

Councillor Allen did not accept the proposed amendment and Councillor Levett seconded the recommendations as included in the report. 

The following Members took part in debate:

·       Councillor Sean Nolan

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Val Bryant

Points raised in the debate included that:

·       The parking space would be empty for majority of the time.

·       Queries remained regarding alternative sites and whether these should be investigated.

·       The application was policy compliant.

The Principal Planning Officer clarified that there was no planning reason to object to this application or for any tests for potential other sites required under the planning policies for this matter.

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed and Councillor David Levett seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 23/01198/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.