Agenda and minutes

The Chairman referred to a number of housekeeping issues in relation to the fire alarm, exits, the need to silence mobile devices and the unisex toilets outside of the Council Chamber.

The Chairman also referred to this being the first meeting since the adoption of the District Plan.  He acknowledged the magnificent work that had gone into preparing the District Plan and also in bringing the plan into fruition.  The Chairman advised the Committee that there would be a short post meeting briefing.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 10 October 2018.

Councillor P Boylan proposed and Councillor S Bull seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2018 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the addition of Councillor M Allen to the apologies detailed at Minute 211.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 June 2018, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the addition of Councillor M Allen to the apologies detailed at Minute 211.

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/1399/VAR, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Chairman and the Head of Planning and Building Control summarised the application.  The Head advised that the principal issue for Members was in relation to the extended harm to the landscape, given that the solar farm was already in place on this site.

Members should balance the extended harm against the extended renewable energy provision in line with renewable energy policies.  The Head emphasised that a deadline end date still applied and the applicant would be required to return the land to its original use.

Councillor D Andrews stated that he believed that the balance of considerations was quite close.  He questioned why the application to extend the deadline had been made so early on prior to the deadline on the original application.

The Chairman commented that decisions on extensions of such deadlines were often made on a commercial basis rather than in relation to planning matters.  Members must decide whether there was more harm than good or good than harm when making a decision on this application.  The Head confirmed that applications of this nature were often made for financial rather than planning reasons.

Councillor D Andrews stated that he would have preferred to be considering an extension of time much closer to the original deadline.  He commented that the solar photovoltaic panels had only been in place for 2 years and had probably been operating for less than that.  He referred to his sense of discomfort with this application and he was supportive of much of what had been said by Great Munden Parish Council.  He referred to the well balanced nature of the report prepared by the Officer.

Councillor J Kaye commented that a key issue was one of landscaping, given that the approved landscaping scheme that was intended to screen the ground-mounted solar panels had not yet reached maturity.  He referred to solar farms where a longer end date had been given at the outset rather than an application being submitted to extend a shorter deadline as with this application.

Councillor J Jones referred to apparent non-compliance with landscaping conditions and he queried whether this could be tightened up with stronger conditions.  The Chairman stated that the solar farm already had planning permission and whilst the previous conditions could be enforced, new conditions could not now be applied.

The Head confirmed that Members could not attach new conditions.  Members were advised that the planting period had not commenced when the matter was mentioned to Officers.  The planting period had now commenced, however, and Officers would monitor the position although they had no reason to believe that the condition would not be adhered to by the applicant.

The Head confirmed to Councillor J Jones that an informative could be attached to the planning permission reminding the applicant in respect of the compliance with the planning conditions regarding landscaping.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 261.

a)      3/18/1548/FUL – Recommended for Approval

b)      3/18/1549/LBC – Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of applications 3/18/1548/FUL and 3/18/1549/LBC, planning permission and listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head detailed the relevant planning history and summarised the applications for single storey extensions to the Courtyard Arts Centre in Hertford.  The principal changes included the design of the infill extension within the courtyard plus changes to the size and position of roof lights.

Members were advised that Officers had given weight to the 2015 planning permission and there had been no significant changes in policy or circumstances since 2015.  The Head stated that local residents had expressed concerns in relation to car parking but the fact that planning permission was already in place was a material consideration.

Members were reminded that the site was close to the town centre and other parking facilities.  The Head concluded that the matter of car parking was not one that warranted refusal of planning permission in this case.

Councillor P Ruffles, as the local ward Member, referred to car parking.  He accepted the logic detailed in the report and the comments made by Officers.  He queried whether the Council’s parking team could explore the intensification of the use of the parking places for Courtyard Arts Centre.

Councillor Ruffles accepted the difficulties of a shared use but requested that Officers look again at maximising the intensification of the available parking at the Arts Centre.  Councillor J Kaye referred to paragraph 2.4 of the report submitted and the removal of the element of the application that covered the provision of a concrete platform for the storage of refuse bins in response to concerns that had been raised by the landscape advisor.  He requested some clarity as to where the bins would go.

The Head advised that the application had not demonstrated an alternative location for the bins but Officers could add a condition if Members felt it was necessary requiring details of where the refuse storage would be located.  Members were advised that this was not a pivotal matter when the Authority had determined the 2015 application and no further detail had been forthcoming from the applicant.

Councillor P Ruffles proposed and Councillor M Allen seconded, a motion that in respect of applications 3/18/1548/FUL and 3/18/1549/LBC, the Committee support the recommendations for approval, subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee supported the recommendations of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of applications 3/18/1548/FUL and 3/18/1549/LBC, planning permission and listed building consent be granted, subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted.

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/1604/HH, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.  The Chairman explained that this application had been reported to the Committee as the applicant was a District Councillor.

The Head summarised the application for extensions to a residential property.  Members were advised that the property had been extended previously and the site was located in the rural area beyond the Green Belt.

The Head advised that the previous and proposed extensions would not cause significant harm to character and appearance of the building, the site or the surroundings. 

Members were advised that the adjacent properties were listed but having regard to the size and scale of the proposed extensions and the distance to the listed buildings, Officers considered that there would be no harm to the setting of those heritage assets.

Councillor M Allen proposed and Councillor D Andrews seconded, a motion that in respect of application 3/18/1604/HH, the Committee support the recommendation for approval, subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee supported the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/18/1604/HH, planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted.

(A)  Appeals against refusal of Planning Permission/ non?determination.

(B)  Planning Appeals Lodged.

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

(D)     Planning Statistics.

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.