Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor K Warnell.  It was noted that Councillor S Bull was substituting for Councillor K Warnell.

The Chairman welcomed all to the meeting and outlined the process to be followed.  He outlined general housekeeping issues and reminded those in attendance that the meeting would be webcasted.

The Chairman drew Members’ attention to an error on the front of the Agenda in that Councillor D Andrews should have been listed as a Member of the Committee and Councillor P Ruffles as a substitute.

The Chairman advised that Agenda Item 6 (Proposed Use of Directions to Restrict Permitted Development Rights in Conservation Areas) had been deferred pending further advice from Officers.

Finally, the Chairman advised that training had been arranged for 31 August 2016 regarding the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), Section 106 and development viability.  Training relating to an update on the District Plan had also been arranged for 1 September 2016.

Councillor R Standley declared that she would leave the room during the consideration of the matter referred to in Minute 168 on the grounds that she was a Member of the Riversmead Residents Panel.  She explained that whilst she did not consider that she had a disclosable pecuniary interest, she would not participate in the debate to avoid any perception of bias.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 22 June 2016.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2016 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Minute 111 – Declarations of Interest.

Delete – ‘Councillor R Standley declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in application 3/16/0689/FUL.  She left the room during the determination of this application.’

Replace with – ‘…..In respect of Minute 115 – Application 3/16/0689/FUL, Councillor R Standley declared that she would leave the room during the consideration of this matter on the grounds that she was a Member of the Riversmead Residents Panel.  She explained that whilst she did not consider that she had a disclosable pecuniary interest, she would not participate in the matter to avoid any perception of bias.’

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Amico addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Livings spoke for the application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/15/2254/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor P Kenealy, as the local ward Member, addressed the Committee regarding a number of benefits of the application.  He stated that the solar farm would be 50% of the size of the previously refused scheme and there would be no light pollution.  He commented that the site could be restored to agricultural use at any time and there were no alternative brownfield sites.  He concluded by referring to the overwhelming local support for the proposed development.

The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that the site had been reduced since the previously refused application.  The site had been reduced from 17 to 7 hectares or the equivalent of 10 megawatts to 5 megawatts of energy.  A number of landscape impacts had been addressed and national and local policy supported renewable energy in principle, subject to the landscape impacts.

The Head advised that the visual impacts on public rights of way had been reduced and Officers felt that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the harm and Members had to make a judgement on the acceptability of this revised application.

The Head responded to queries from Councillors R Brunton, M Casey and J Kaye regarding government policy, brownfield sites and agricultural land in East Herts as well as the possibility of glare.  Members were advised that Hertfordshire had high quality agricultural land and there was no lesser quality land available.  The solar farm was not a permanent feature and some grazing would still be possible.

The Head confirmed that the solar farm should not generate glare and if there was this would only be visible from a few points on distant rights of way.  Members were given a detailed breakdown of the locations of the public rights of way and the potential for the site to be viewed from them.  The Head stated that the site had moved onto a higher plateau and the screening planting would take time to mature.

Councillor M Freeman highlighted a point made by Officers in the report that the Housing and Planning Act 2016 made it increasingly unlikely that any large brownfield sites would be used for the generation of renewable energy in East Herts.  He referred to recent facts regarding tackling emissions and global warming and he felt that Officers had summed up the situation well in paragraph 1.4 of the report submitted.

Councillor J Jones referred to the fact the size of the proposed solar farm site had reduced from 17 to 7.7 hectares.  He commented however, that the landscape impact was unchanged hence the recommendation for refusal from the Landscape Officer.  He stated that the application was against NPPF policy and the solar farm would be better located adjacent to a motorway as was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 167.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Tombs addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/0689/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor J Taylor, as the local ward Member, expressed concerns that the number of parking spaces had only been increased from 8 to 10.  She emphasised that this did not represent a significant improvement and she stated that 90% of the residents of the existing flats did not drive.  She commented that 10 spaces for 27 residents would be inadequate as many people needed cars to get to work.

Councillor J Taylor pointed out that this already built up area was currently saturated with cars and the additional flats could result in people being unable to park in the vicinity of their homes.  She felt that the proposed development could not be integrated into the surrounding area with only 10 parking spaces.  She urged the Committee to think very carefully about the parking situation before determining the application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the relevant issues had been well explained.  He detailed the relevant planning history and emphasised that the site was constrained in many ways.  The Head reminded Members that the site was convenient for the town centre and a new Asda supermarket and the applicant had provided 10 cycle boxes.  He concluded that Members should weigh up the parking issue against the wider benefits of the proposed development.

Councillor D Andrews commented that one reason people were unable to park in Gladstone Road was commuters parking then walking to the station now that Oyster cards could be used from Ware.  He stated that parking was inadequate and the 10 spaces should be allocated in some way and protected to address the issue of commuter parking.

The Head confirmed to Councillor J Kaye the location of the extra 2 spaces that had been provided by the applicant.  Councillor M Freeman referred to the duty of Members to provide good quality housing and he did not accept that 10 apartments would generate 27 vehicles.  He felt that the applicant had done a good job in responding to the concerns Members had raised at the previous meeting.

Councillor R Brunton sympathised with the local ward Member.  He stated however, that Ware Town Council welcomed the application and none of the statutory consultees objected to the application and neither did he.

Councillor J Jones acknowledged the difficulties of squeezing the 10 car parking spaces into the proposed development.  He referred to the 10 cycle boxes and commented that 10 spaces was a vast improvement.  He stated that he would be supporting the application.

Councillor S Bull stated that he knew the area well and he acknowledged that car parking was a big problem in this area.  He supported the idea of allocated parking spaces for the proposed development and he was of the view that the site needed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168.

Recommended for Approval.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/0959/REM, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillors S Bull and J Jones briefly addressed the Committee in support of the recommendation.  After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/16/0959/REM, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr White addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/0799/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head advised that the value of the proposed development outweighed the impact on the greenbelt.  Councillor S Bull commented on whether the colour of the container could be one that blended in with the surroundings.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/16/0799/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Recommended for Approval.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/1165/HH, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head advised that the proposed first floor rear extension had better regard for neighbouring properties than a previous extension to the rear of the property under reference 3/03/1271/FP.

Councillor M Freeman stated that the proposed development would be in keeping with the surroundings and more respectful of adjoining properties.  After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/16/1165/HH, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

At the invitation of the Chairman, the Head of Planning and Building Control summarised a number of points of relevance for Members to consider in respect of the appeal decisions detailed in the report.  The Head highlighted a number of recent appeal decisions and referred in detail to a number of points of interest in a summary note Members had been given.

Councillor D Andrews commented that the decisions indicated that Officers were getting it right in their approach and Members had a lot to be thankful for in this respect.  The Chairman stated that the update provided a valuable insight into the direction of travel and was a useful reference for future decisions.

RESOLVED – that the following reports be noted:

(A)   Appeals against refusal of planning permission / non-determination;

(B)     Planning Appeals lodged;

(C)    Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing dates; and

(D)    Planning Statistics.