Skip to main content

Agenda item

25/03153/FP LAND TO THE EAST OF 2, WEST LANE, PIRTON, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG5 3RA

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Extension of existing hardstanding new concrete pad for sitting of caravan (development already carried out). Installation of permeable driveway (development has commenced). Creation of vehicular access off West Lane.

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 25/03153/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Minutes:

Audio recording – 47 minutes 36 seconds

 

N.B. At the start of this item, having previously declared an interest as Member Advocate objector, Councillor Claire Strong moved to the public speaking gallery.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised there were no updates to the report, however clarified for Members that the application was for the retention of the existing hardstanding area, the gravel laid on site and proposed work for landscaping. The use of the site for a mobile home was not for consideration with this application.

 

The Principal Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 25/03153/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Tom Tyson, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       A landscaping condition had been proposed and details of that, including hedge heights, would need to be agreed with the Applicant.

·       It would be difficult to impose a minimum hedge height, as sapling would need to be planted and would take time to grow. It would therefore not be reasonable to apply a condition on this aspect.

·       A condition could be included to impose a requirement to replace any trees which died within 5 years, but the size could not be conditioned.

 

The Chair invited the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Claire Strong, to speak against the application. Councillor Strong thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·       All previous applications for dwellings on this site had been refused. Previously a caravan had been positioned on the site, which was then provided a Certificate of Lawful Dwelling.

·       The previously small caravan has been replaced with a larger static home and the site has been cleared of shrubs at the front and gravel has been installed, which did not appear compliant with standards required for highways.

·       The site was outside of the village boundary and was situated between two larger properties, with views through to the fields beyond.

·       The hardstanding footprint was excessive and now ran from the front of the site through to the caravan at the rear.

·       There had been no continuous use of the caravan since the previous occupant died in the early 2000s.

·       If this was an application for a new dwelling, then an EV charging point should be included as required by policy.

·       The driveway appeared disproportionate to the site.

·       The street scene had dramatically changed through the works already carried out on site and this application sought to regularise the actions which had already been done.

·       The Parish Council, who were unable to register to speak at this meeting, did not feel this was appropriate for the village and had concerns over the Right of Way to the side of the site, the lighting situation on the site and over the proposed installation of a septic tank.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Strong for their presentation and invited the agent to the Applicant, Mr Tony White, to speak in support of the application. Mr White thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·       This application was sought to facilitate works at an existing caravan site, with lawful consent for this use granted in 1995.

·       There was no restriction on the number of caravans allowed on site in the Certificate granted in 1995.

·       No period of vacancy of the site would invalidate the existing certificate.

·       There were proposed improvements to both hardstanding and landscaping on site and would provide the site with its own access, rather than through the current shared access point.

·       There was support from the Highways Authority for the application, which would mirror neighbouring properties.

·       The site was outside of the Conservation Area and there were no listed buildings in the vicinity.

·       The Applicant had worked hard to positively address concerns raised in the refused application. There were improved landscaping proposals, improved delivery of Biodiversity Net Gain on site and the installation of instant hedging.

·       All five of the previous reasons for refusal had now been addressed and this was confirmed in the report of the Officer.

·       If the application was refused, the Biodiversity Net Gain would be lost and the site would still be able to be used.

·       Condition 2 clarified what caravans and how many could use the site, which would not be in place should permission be refused.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Claire Winchester

 

In response to points of clarification, Mr White advised that:

 

·       The certificate did not limit the number of caravans allowed on the site. As no specific number was included in the certificate, it would be difficult to defend this position on appeal.

·       The static caravan on site was currently occupied.

·       The touring caravan on site was owned by the Applicant.

·       He was not aware of protective fencing on the driveway currently, but anything not included within the application would be removed.

·       The hedging installed would be native and instant hedging, which was covered by the soft and hardstanding condition included. Trees would be installed and staggered at 5m apart, with hedging to supplement.

·       Plans for landscaping would be provided to Officers as part of the conditions, but it would not be reasonable for a condition to be included for a minimum hedge height.

·       A condition could be included to require the hedging to be planted at the first planting season following consent.

 

In response to points raised during the public participation, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that it was felt that the conditions proposed would be robust and sufficient to cover points raised by Members.

 

In response to a further question from Councillor Ruth Brown, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the orange coloured gravel would be retained on site, but it was expected that the proposed landscaping would provide sufficient screening of this from the street view.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of the public participation, Councillor Strong left the Chamber for the debate and vote on this item.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason, as Chair, proposed and Councillor Emma Fernandes seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 25/03153/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item, there was a break in proceedings and the meeting reconvened at 20.28, at which point Councillor Strong returned to the Committee.

Supporting documents: