Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

There were no apologies.

The Legal Officer said that sometimes during the Member debate, conditions were discussed, the debate then moved on and a motion was proposed. He said that when the motion was to approve, the Democratic Services Officer would seek clarity from the proposer and seconder as to whether the motion to approve was as per the recommendation or with any other additional conditions or amendments.

The Legal Officer said that there would then be no question for the public or Members as to what exactly was being voted on by the Committee.

To receive any Members' declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 19 May 2021.

Councillor Andrews proposed and Councillor Ruffles seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2021 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

Minute 21 – Insert as 4^th paragraph – ‘Councillor Beckett endorsed the comments made by the Chairman in respect of the impartiality of the Development Management Committee’

Minute 25 – delete in last sentence, 15^th paragraph – ‘of’.

Replace with ‘…for’.

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

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2021, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

Minute 21 – Insert as 4^th paragraph – ‘Councillor Beckett endorsed the comments made by the Chairman in respect of the impartiality of the Development Management Committee’

Minute 25 – delete in last sentence, 15^th paragraph – ‘of’.

Replace with ‘…for’.

Recommended for Approval

The Interim Development Management Team Leader recommended that in respect of application 3/20/1953/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions detailed at the end of the report submitted and delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the Section 106 legal agreement and conditions.

The Interim Development Management Team Leader, on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, said that Scott House was within the Hertford Conservation Area and made a positive contribution to the character, appearance and special interest of the conservation area.

The Interim Development Management Team Leader set out the location of the site, which was a short distance from Hertford Town Centre. She said that the key issues when assessing this application were the principle of the development, housing mix and density, affordable housing, design and layout, archaeology, landscaping, access and sustainable transport matters, drainage and flooding, sustainability and climate change, biodiversity, contamination and infrastructure requirements and planning obligations.

Members were advised that the principle of the development was acceptable on this brownfield site within the urban area of Hertford and made good use of an existing vacant building to provide residential units.

The Interim Development Management Team Leader said that the proposed development was acceptable in respect of all of the key issues. She said that the site was sustainably located within Hertford and there was considered to be adequate car and cycle parking. Members were advised that there would be improvements to pedestrian access, provision of electric vehicle charging points and no adverse highways safety impact.

The Committee was advised that the viability considerations of the proposed development had resulted in no provision of the policy requirement of three affordable housing units and a shortfall of just under £105,000 towards identified infrastructure projects.

The Interim Development Management Team Leader said that Officers recommended that the available funding of £62,000 be secured towards primary and secondary education and libraries for Hertfordshire County Council. She said that a review mechanism was proposed as part of the Section 106 agreement to allow the Council to benefit from any potential uplift in land value.

Members’ attention was drawn to the late representations and in particular to a further comment from Hertford Town Council maintaining their objection to the proposed development. Members were advised of an additional neighbour representation covering parking concerns. The neighbour had also indicated that a previous boundary issue had been addressed.

The Interim Development Management Team Leader said that an additional condition was recommended to secure accessible and adaptable dwellings in terms of securing higher building regulation requirements. Members were advised that there were no identified conflicts with the development plan and no material considerations why planning permission should not be granted.

Members were advised that the proposals were considered to be a sustainable form of development that was in accordance with the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. The Interim Development Management Team  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

(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.

To consider such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration and is not likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information.

There was no urgent business.