Agenda item

Prior to consideration of the application Councillor Daniel Allen advised that he had been taught by Mr Sheiff, one of the public speakers. However this would not have any bearing on his decision and he would therefore take part in both the debate and vote.

 

RESOLVED: That application 20/00547/FP be REFUSED planning permissions for the reasons below:

 

The proposal would be likely to cause harm to the living conditions of nearby residential  dwellings in general, and, in particular to the first floor flats above 1-3 The Mead, where their external access steps and  first floor habitable room windows  to the existing side elevation are in close proximity  to the proposed A5 uses side access door and to the proposed extraction flue.  The harm identified would result  from  unacceptable levels of noise/disturbance and odours in this  locality associated with the A5 use.   As a result the application is considered to fail to comply with Policies 8 and 57 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan no.2 with Alterations 1996, Policies D1 and D3 of the North Hertfordshire District Proposed Submission Local Plan 2011-2031 and the provisions of the NPPF, particularly Sections 8 (Paragraph 91), 12 (Paragraphs 127 & 130),  and 15 (Paragraph 180).

 

NB: The Committee took a comfort break at 21.16

 

The meeting resumed at 21.28 at which time the Committee, Member and Scrutiny Manager undertook a roll call.

Audio Recording – 1 hour 5 minutes 57 seconds

 

Prior to consideration of the application Councillor Daniel Allen advised that he had been taught by Mr Shieff, one of the public speakers. However this would not have any bearing on his decision and he would therefore take part in both the debate and vote.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00507/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

She advised that further representations had been sent to Members by email.

 

Mr Jim Shieff and Mr Mark Robertson thanked the Vice-Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/00547/FP

 

Mr Shieff gave a verbal presentation including:

 

·                Both he and Mr Robertson lived in the building being discussed;

·                There was a lot of local hostility to this application;

·                This application would be life changing for him, he felt threatened;

·                If approved he would feel trapped in his flat;

·                The noise of construction would impact heavily on him;

·                The flue would be attached just inches from his window;

·                This Committee refused an application for a loft conversion based on fire risk, this application was definitely a fire risk;

·                He had a right to enjoy peaceful residence and that is what he was demanding.

 

Mr Robertson gave a verbal presentation including:

 

·                There was already prolific anti-social behaviour and drug use and this development would make things worse;

·                The yard of the shop was a pit;

·                It would be challenging to obtain a mortgage on the flats above if the development were approved;

·                The already bad parking situation would deteriorate;

·                The Mead was a poor area where obesity was already an issue;

·                There was a school nearby.

 

The following Members asked questions of Mr Shieff and Mr Robertson:

 

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala;

·                Councillor David Levett.

 

In response to questions Mr Shieff advised:

 

·                That the proposed Flue would be secured to his wall inches from his sitting room window;

·                The only access to the flats above were via the stairs by the proposed side door.

 

The Vice-Chair thanked Mr Shieff and Mr Robertson for their presentation.

 

Councillor Ian Albert thanked the Vice-Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee as a Member Advocate in objection to application 20/00547/FP and gave a verbal presentation including:

 

·                No explanation had been given as to how this development would compliment the function and character of the area;

·                There were a lot of objections to this application;

·                The addition of a takeaway would cause a blight on the area;

·                The nearness of the flue to the upstairs window would make the entrance ugly, would likely send noise and vibrations into Mr Shieff’s flat and would make opening his window problematic;

·                This would have an impact on the clothes drying area for the flats above;

·                The area had already been the target of graffiti, rubbish and vandalism and this would likely increase;

·                There was a history of smoking drugs and smashing of bottles;

·                It was likely that customers would sit on the stairs, which could be threatening;

·                There would likely be increased parking problems;

·                The opening hours were too long and should be reduced;

·                He asked that Members refuse the application.

 

The Vice-Chair thanked Councillor Ian Albert for his presentation.

 

The following Members asked questions and took part in the debate:

 

·                Councillor Daniel Allen;

·                Councillor Mike Rice;

·                Councillor David Levett;

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala;

·                Councillor Mike Hughson;

·                Councillor Tony Hunter.

 

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

 

·                Condition 6 stated the opening hours as recommended by Environmental Health.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·                This was a repeat application that had been submitted to try to overcome previous concerns;

·                Planning was unable to legislate for people’s behaviour;

·                ETC7 of the emerging Local Plan was designed to protect existing shops, this would not apply in this case as the shop was remaining;

·                Cleaning of the extraction unit, noise surveys etc would be considered;

·                The previous refusal related to size and design.

 

A Member suggested that, if the application were approved, an additional condition should be included to ensure that the back door remained closed.

 

Councillor David Levett proposed that the application be refused planning permission on the grounds that the siting of the flue would cause harm to the living conditions of nearby residential dwellings contrary to D3 of the emerging Local Plan. Councillor Sue Ngwala seconded refusal.

 

Upon the vote it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 20/00547/FP be REFUSED planning permissions for the reasons below:

 

The proposal would be likely to cause harm to the living conditions of nearby residential  dwellings in general, and, in particular to the first floor flats above 1-3 The Mead, where their external access steps and  first floor habitable room windows  to the existing side elevation are in close proximity  to the proposed A5 uses side access door and to the proposed extraction flue. The harm identified would result from unacceptable levels of noise/disturbance and odours in this locality associated with the A5 use. As a result the application is considered to fail to comply with Policies 8 and 57 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan no.2 with Alterations 1996, Policies D1 and D3 of the North Hertfordshire District Proposed Submission Local Plan 2011-2031 and the provisions of the NPPF, particularly Sections 8 (Paragraph 91), 12 (Paragraphs 127 & 130),  and 15 (Paragraph 180).

 

NB: The Committee took a comfort break at 21.16

 

The meeting resumed at 21.28 at which time the Committee, Member and Scrutiny Manager undertook a roll call.