Venue: Council Chamber, Wallfields, Hertford. View directions
Contact: Peter Mannings Tel: (01279) 502174 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Webcast: View the webcast
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.
To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 5 December 2018.
Councillor J Jones proposed and Councillor M Allen seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 December 2018 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.
RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 December 2018, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
3/18/1776/FUL - Demolition of garages. Erection of an extension to Chelsing House comprising a two-storey commercial building (Use Class B1(c) - Light industrial and B8 - Storage and distribution) with single storey link. Reconfiguration of car parking and associated works at Chelsing House, Mead Lane, Hertford, SG13 7AW PDF 150 KB
Recommended for Approval
The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/1776/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.
The Head of Planning and Building Control summarised the application and detailed the relevant planning history. Members were advised that a number of garage buildings would be removed to make way for the erection of a modern commercial storage building and office space.
The Head advised that the site was located within the designated employment area of Mead Lane, Hertford. The policy position dictated that commercial development in this area should be supported. Members were reminded that the adopted District Plan had identified land to the north of this site for a mixed use development and the relationship between these sites should be carefully considered.
The Head advised that the residential element of the mixed development extended to the north of this site. Officers considered however that an acceptable relationship could be achieved between the 2 sites.
Members were advised that, despite the proposed increase in floor space, the site would achieve the required number of spaces based on the parking standards that the Authority would seek to achieve.
The Head confirmed that some trees would be removed to accommodate car parking. Members were advised however that following further consideration of the issue of the loss of landscaping at the site, the applicant had offered the provision of replacement planting on the south east corner of the site.
The Chairman confirmed that he had received an email from the Mayor of Hertford asking that Members be careful in their deliberations in respect of car parking. Councillor J Jones commented that there was an under provision of car parking on Mead Lane car and there was no mention of any proposed cycle storage. He believed that there would be an under provision of car parking.
Councillor P Boylan commented that the current staff volume on site of 42 would increase to 86 and there would be a reduction in car parking. He had observed the car park being well used when visiting the site and the surrounding roads were also being used for parking. He stated that a travel plan could be submitted and agreed before development commenced on this site.
Councillor P Ruffles commented on a number of matters that he liked in respect of this application. He was concerned in relation to the context of the locality in respect of Highways matters and the access to this site. He referred to the likely reaction to more traffic which would be increased further by the District Plan site. He commented on the year on year increases in road traffic in this location. He sought clarification on the designation of this site as a trips attractor and not a trips generator.
Councillor J Kaye referred to the importance of encouraging employment with a company such as this. He commented on whether more information was available in respect of the fundamental matter ... view the full minutes text for item 342.
3/18/2367/HH - Demolition of 1 No. chimney. Garage conversion. Single storey front extension. First floor side extension. Two storey rear extension. Alterations to fenestration at 44 Church Road PDF 55 KB
Recommendation for Refusal
The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/2367/HH, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.
The Head of Planning and Building Control summarised the application and detailed the relevant planning history. Members were advised that the site was located in the green belt and where there was an identified harm this had to be given substantial weight in decision making. Members had to consider the size and scale of the proposed development and whether this was disproportionate.
The Head referred to paragraphs 8.4, 8.5 and 8.6 of the report and advised that extensions over and above a 100% increase in the size of a property were very much in the range of a disproportionate increase and was therefore inappropriate development in the green belt. Members had to consider whether there were any benefits to which weight could be assigned to clearly outweigh the harm.
The Head reminded Members that there were no public benefits to which the Committee could assign any weight and there were no very special circumstances to outweigh the harm. Officers had therefore recommended the application for refusal of planning permission.
Councillor M Allen commented on permitted development rights regarding the rear extension in terms of whether this would be approved. He also sought clarification in terms of whether the 157% increase was over and above the property as it stands today or over and above the property as it was first constructed.
Councillor R Brunton commented on the green belt policies with particular reference to the loss of openness. He referred to a comment by the Officer in the report that the extensions would not be overbearing and did not extend beyond the rear building line. He felt that the houses to either side of this dwelling were of sufficient size for the extensions to be not overbearing in nature.
Councillor Brunton believed that it was not appropriate in this case to be so rigid in the application of green belt policy. He concluded that he would not be supporting the recommendation for refusal as the proposed extensions were no higher or wider than the existing neighbouring properties and he felt the harm was marginal in this case.
Councillor P Boylan stated that this property was relatively small compared to other properties around it and any increase in percentage size would appear large in relation to surrounding properties.
Following a number of other comments from Members, the Head reminded the Committee that green belt was one of the most consistently applied set of policies and one of the most long standing policy positions. Members should ensure consistency in the application of green belt policy due to the significant number of properties in East Herts that were located in the green belt.
The Head advised that the fact that an inappropriate development was located in the Green Belt was harmful in itself regardless of the scale or design of what was proposed. Members ... view the full minutes text for item 343.
(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.