Agenda item

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 planning for these 7 dwellings.

·       The Green Belt and biodiversity had been considered with the planting of 50 trees and hedgerows.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

 

In response to the points of clarification, Mr Smith advised that:

 

·       If the application was refused, he would be willing to build the original design, but did not feel this would be the best outcome for the development.

·       The increase in scale of 23% was due to the double garages.

·       One dwelling would have accommodation over a double garage.

 

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

 

·       This scheme was allowed after an appeal in 2021 which would expire in September this year.

·       This current scheme was comparable to the previous scheme with the same number of dwellings.

·       There were very special circumstances to support this scheme which were set out in more detail in the report.

·       No objections had been received from the HCC Highways Officer.

·       There was no reason to object on traffic or safety grounds.

 

In response to the points of clarification, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·       Policy SP1 was an overarching policy regarding location and seeking to achieve sustainable development in North Hertfordshire.

·       Policy SP 2 was the settlement hierarchy.

·       Policy SP5 was concerning development in the Green Belt.

·       Policy D1 was sustainable design. 

·       As the applicant had commenced implementation by demolishing existing buildings, the fall-back permission would not expire in September 2024 and would last in perpetuity.

·       This proposal complied with Policy SP5 as it was an uplifted design with considerable improvements with high quality materials.

 

Councillor Ruth Brown proposed to approve planning permission and Councillor Amy Allen seconded.

 

The following Members took part in debate:

 

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

 

Points raised in the debate included:

 

·       This was an improved planning application to the previous design.

·       The Electric Fob Entry Gates to the entrance to the development should be removed in line with the policy of the Council and be replaced by gate posts.

·       Road safety was not a concern due to the size of the application and no concerns had been raised by the Highways Officers.

·       Improving road safety in this area was an ongoing campaign for the Council.

·       Developers needed to be mindful of sustainability with planning applications as the Council has declared a climate emergency.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

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.”