Agenda and minutes

The Chairman thanked the Head of Planning and Building Control and Planning Officers for all their work during the 2014/15 civic year.  She also thanked the Democratic Services Officer for his attention to detail.

The Chairman also thanked the Vice–Chairman and the Committee Members for their input and support.  She thanked, in particular, Councillor M Alexander for his help and advice during the last year.  She stated that he had been a Member of the Committee for 16 years.  Councillor Alexander thanked the Chairman for her excellent stewardship of the Committee and commented that she had made a difficult job look very easy.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Monday 16 March 2015.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2015 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Recommended for Refusal.

Mr Twemlow addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Anderson and Mr Roberts spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/15/0149/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor J Mayes, as the local ward Member, commented that the opinion of local residents seemed to her to be split pretty much 50/50.  She expressed concern that whilst the proposed additional roundabout on the A1170 would cause traffic calming it would also cause some motorists to divert from the roundabout along Cautherly Lane and Lower Road then into Ware.

Councillor Mayes stated that these were very narrow roads that were unsuitable for large amounts of traffic and she was also concerned that the Bengeo rat run could be reproduced in this area.  She commented that she and local residents wanted to preserve the rural environment of Great Amwell and she wondered whether it would be appropriate to attach a condition that restricted the opening hours of the food store to match those of the Van Hage Garden Centre.

Councillor Mayes concluded that there was a separate exit from the Van Hage site onto the B1502 and she commented on whether more traffic could be diverted that way rather than on the A1170.  She stated that her concerns regarding the traffic impact were purely conjecture and she requested that the Committee take her points into consideration.

The Director referred Members to the additional representations summary and he provided a detailed breakdown of all of the additional representations.  Members were advised that the planning issues were relatively clear cut and the significant support for this application from potential customers was not a material planning consideration and the popularity of potential retail operators was also not a material consideration.

The Director reminded Members that the application was for an A1 use class operator and the planning merits of the application had to be assessed as for any retail operator according to relevant planning policies.  The Committee was reminded of the clear Green Belt restrictions although the Van Hage buildings were already designated as a major developed site.

The Director advised that the proposed development was outside of the major developed site designation and would extend the footprint of the existing building.  Officers considered that it was not credible to argue that this application would not adversely impact on the site’s openness and it was a matter of fact that the application would have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt.  Members were advised that recent appeal decisions in Great Amwell had confirmed this point.

The Director confirmed that there would have to be material planning considerations that amounted to the very special circumstances that clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt for this application to be approved.  The Committee was reminded that this was an out of town location and Members must consider the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sequential test of retail  ...  view the full minutes text for item 614.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Findlay addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that subject to the applicant or successor in title entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of application 3/14/2023/OP, outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director also recommended that should the legal agreement referred to above not be completed and a planning decision issued prior to 6 April 2015, authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control, in consultation with the Chairman of this Committee, to alter and amend the details of the service areas to which funding available as a result of this development was to be assigned, to ensure that any resulting legal agreement was compatible with the appropriate Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations applicable from that date.

Councillor M Newman stated that he had been as positive as he could be when he had been approached by the applicant regarding this planning application.  He confirmed that the Authority had considered the applicant’s proposal in a positive and proactive manner.

Councillor Newman highlighted the issue of whether or not there was a noise nuisance from Hunsdon Skips.  He emphasised that Sworders were currently working on a new noise and vibration management plan which would contain mitigation measures specifically for Hunsdon Skips.

Councillor Newman referred to the details contained in the current Environment Agency (EA) noise management plan with particular emphasis on the pledge that noisier machinery would be operated at more sociable hours.  He pointed out that the EA had stressed that it was committed to bringing the site back into compliance.

Councillor Newman stated that there were two principal complainants who had been active in respect of this application.  He detailed the current occupancy situation regarding the affected cottages.  He suggested that the residents of Tanners Way were unlikely to go through the process of registering as complainants as they were mostly elderly and many were hard of hearing.

Councillor Newman stressed that Hunsdon Parish Council were concerned that the submitted noise assessment was not representative of the level of activities at Hunsdon Skips.  The Parish Council had therefore requested that Members commission a noise consultant to ensure a proper independent assessment was undertaken.

Councillor Newman concluded that there was widespread concern regarding the impact of this application on the village.  He stated that the noise assessment was indicative of the type of noise but did not accurately reflect the intensity due to the number of machines in operation during the assessment.  He read out a verbatim noise diary that had been completed by a resident.

Councillor P Moore stated that she had observed 7 lorry movements during the 30 minutes she was at the site and this had equated to roughly one movement every 4 minutes.  She referred to the emphasis on quality of life in the emerging District Plan.  She  ...  view the full minutes text for item 615.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that subject to the applicant or successor in title entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of application 3/14/1369/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director also recommended that should the legal agreement referred to above not be completed and a planning decision issued prior to 6 April 2015, authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control, in consultation with the Chairman of this Committee, to alter and amend the details of the service areas to which funding available as a result of this development was to be assigned, to ensure that any resulting legal agreement was compatible with the appropriate Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations applicable from that date.

Councillor P Ruffles confirmed that he knew the site well and he was supportive of what was a well organised form of development.  He referred to a couple of minor factual errors on page 93 of the report.

Councillor Ruffles referred to paragraph 7.34 and emphasised that twice before, a footway had been promised but not delivered as part of planning applications in Hertford.  He emphasised that the public passage from Hertingfordbury Road to North Road had not been established by default as part of the construction of the showroom.

Councillor Ruffles commented that he would not want to see this path lost and he was also concerned that the path should not be gated.  He concluded that this had been a difficult application but the result would be a good place to live despite the absence of gardens.

The Director advised that condition 10 in the report would ensure that the new footpath through the site would be completed before the occupation of the residential units on this site.  Members were advised that a number of Hertfordshire Highways agreements would also be required to secure this footway route.

Councillor G Jones expressed concerns regarding the proximity of this site to the A414.  He stated however, that he was comforted by Councillor Ruffles’ greater knowledge and support in respect of this application.

Councillor G Jones queried what would happen if the applicant did not come forward with the unilateral undertaking in advance of the 6 April 2015 deadline.  The Director confirmed that Officers were asking for delegated authority to ensure that any resulting legal agreement was compatible with the appropriate CIL Regulations.

The Committee accepted the recommendations of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that (A) subject to the applicant or successor in title entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of application 3/14/1369/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted; and

(B)   should the legal agreement referred to in recommendation (A) above not be completed and a planning decision issued prior to 6 April  ...  view the full minutes text for item 616.

Recommended for Refusal/Enforcement.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/14/2188/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.  The Director also recommended that enforcement action be authorised on the basis now detailed.

Councillor J Jones commented that his judgement had been clouded as he had been unable to access the site due to guard dogs.  He emphasised that no one came to assist him even though the presence of 3 cars indicated that some people were on the site.

Councillor G Jones stated that, although he too had not been able to access the site he had been able to gain a decent appreciation of the site from Pembridge Lane.  He stated that it was obvious to him that there was activity on the site that you would not necessarily see in a Green Belt area.  He emphasised that he was comfortable with supporting the Director’s recommendations.

In response to a query from Councillor M Alexander, the Director confirmed that Brickenden Liberty Parish Council had raised no objections subject to a condition that the use was solely as a holiday venue with short term lets of 4 weeks or less.

After being put to the meeting and votes taken, the Committee accepted the recommendations of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/14/2188/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted; and

(B)   the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in conjunction with the Director of Finance and Support Services, be authorised to take enforcement action on the basis now detailed.

Recommended for Approval.

Ann O’Connor addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/14/1031/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/14/1031/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Refusal.

Mrs Bird addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/14/2122/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor M Carver, as the local ward Member, stated that he hoped Members had viewed the site.  He highlighted the applicant’s reasons for seeking permission for a relatively small extension and why this was so important.  He also referred to a number of precedents for extensions of a similar size in what was a relatively small hamlet.

Councillor Carver emphasised that that the applicant had reduced the size of the proposed development and had improved the design to the point where the proposed development complemented the existing very small property and the street scene.

Councillor Carver stated that the size of the property was so small that percentage statistics regarding the size of the proposed extension should not really apply.  He pointed out that the use of the word disproportionate by the appeal inspector was a subjective judgement and Members should place a significant emphasis on the end result of this application.

Councillor Carver concluded that the key issue was whether the final result was overbearing or would adversely affect the surrounding area or impact on the conservation area.  He argued that no harm would be caused and he urged the Committee to support the application as the design was in keeping with the existing dwelling.

The Director referred to an additional letter of objection that had been summarised in the additional representations summary.  Members were reminded of the importance of the site history referred to by Councillor Carver.

The Director highlighted the key material consideration of the 2012 appeal decision.  Members were advised that the changes proposed by this latest application had not sufficiently overcome the concerns of the inspector.  Officers therefore considered that the application would lead to a disproportionate increase in the bulk and size of the original building which would adversely affect the character and openness of the Rural Area.

Councillor M Newman emphasised that the Officer’s view that the proposed development would be detrimental to the openness and rural character of the surrounding conservation area was a very subjective judgement.  He stated that all development had an impact and he felt that the impact would be to a reasonable level in this case.

Councillor D Andrews commented that he did not feel that this application was inappropriate and he was minded to support it.  Councillor P Moore stated she had visited the site and had approached this application with an open mind.  She referred to paragraph 7.9 of the report and the fact that the current proposal would double the original floor area of the dwelling.  She concluded that the views of the local ward Member had broadened her vision of this application.

Councillor N Symonds stated that she knew the cottage and the area and opposite the cottages were quite large social housing units that were owned by South  ...  view the full minutes text for item 619.

Enforcement.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of the site relating to E/13/0255/A, enforcement action be authorised on the basis now detailed.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the Director’s recommendation for enforcement action to be authorised in respect of the site relating to E/13/0255/A on the basis now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of E/13/0255/A, the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in conjunction with the Director of Finance and Support Services, be authorised to take enforcement action on the basis now detailed.

Enforcement.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of the sites relating to E/13/0076/A, enforcement action and legal proceedings be authorised on the basis now detailed.

The Director confirmed to Councillor J Jones that there were complex regulations regarding consent for advertisements.  Members were advised that even if a member of the public owned an area of land, consent would still be required, subject to the regulations, before any advertisements were installed.

Councillor D Andrews praised the proactive approach of the Enforcement Team in identifying sites that needed to be tidied up. He welcomed the recommendations for enforcement action and legal proceedings.  In response to comments from the Committee regarding other similar sites across East Herts, the Director advised that Officers would take the details after the meeting to enable the enforcement team to look into this.

After being put to the meeting and votes taken, the Committee accepted the Director’s recommendations for enforcement action and legal proceedings to be authorised in respect of the sites relating to E/13/0076/A on the basis now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of E/13/0076/A, the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in conjunction with the Director of Finance and Support Services, be authorised to take enforcement action and commence legal proceedings on the basis now detailed.

(A)           Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing Dates.

RESOLVED – that the following report be noted:

(A)   Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing dates.