Agenda and minutes

It was moved by Councillor M Alexander and seconded by Councillor S Rutland–Barsby that Councillor M Newman be appointed Vice–Chairman of the Development Control Committee for the 2012/13 civic year.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, Councillor M Newman was appointed Vice–Chairman of the Development Control Committee for the 2012/13 civic year.

RESOLVED – that Councillor M Newman be appointed Vice–Chairman of the Development Control Committee for the 2012/13 civic year.

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors D Andrews, S Bull, G Jones and T Page.  It was noted that Councillors N Symonds and G Williamson were in attendance as substitutes for Councillors Jones and Andrews respectively.

The Chairman welcomed the press and public to the meeting and those who were watching the live webcast.

The Chairman advised that the following applications had been withdrawn from the agenda:

·                          a) 3/12/0427/FP – Conversion and extension of former coachworks to form 2 no. 3 – bedroom houses and ground floor retail unit with 10 no. apartments above and provision of 2 no. 3 bedroom houses on former car park site opposite former Waters Garage Site, 3-9, North Road, Hertford for Mr Tom Beynon; and b) 3/12/0428/LC – Demolition of existing structures at former Waters Garage Site, 3-9, North Road, Hertford for Mr Tom Beynon.

The Chairman welcomed the Committee to the first meeting of the new civic year and stated that she looked forward to working with Members.

The Chairman thanked the Head of Planning and Building Control for the training session arranged by Officers prior to this meeting.  Members were advised that further training would be arranged throughout the year in line with the training schedule that Members had been provided with in advance of this meeting.

Councillor S Rutland–Barsby declared a personal interest in applications 3/12/0252/FP and 3/12/0253/FP, in that she was acquainted with the applicant.

Councillor Mrs R Cheswright declared a personal interest in applications 3/11/2209/FP and 3/12/2210/LB, in that she lived near to the site.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 18 April 2012 (Previously circulated as part of the Council Minute book for 16 May 2012).

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 April 2012 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr David Roberts addressed the Committee in opposition to the applications.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of applications 3/11/2209/FP and 3/11/2210/LB, planning permission and listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Director advised that the Council’s Solicitor had commented that reference to intermediate affordable housing on page 13 of the report now submitted should have instead made reference to shared ownership.

The Director commented that the Solicitor had stated that there was insufficient information relating to the transfer of land between the developer and the Parish Council and further information in respect of this matter, including how the land will be used and maintenance contributions, should be submitted in order for the Section 106 agreement to be properly drafted.

The Director confirmed that a fallback position would need to be identified in any legal agreement should the Parish Council decide not to take ownership of the land.

The Council’s Solicitor had also commented that further information relating to the maintenance costs associated with the balancing pond, future landscaped areas and private access road should be submitted in order for the Section 106 to be properly drafted.  The Director confirmed that the Parish Council had indicated a willingness to fund the maintenance of the balancing pond.

Councillor Mrs R Cheswright expressed her concerns that another modern development of large houses with small rooms and gardens was being imposed on the old English village of Braughing.

Councillor Cheswright referred to a locally acknowledged need for smaller 2 to 3 bedroom properties and commented that the majority of houses in this proposed development were of 4 or more bedrooms.

Councillor Cheswright spoke against the numerous minor amendments that had been made to a number of applications, gradually increasing the size of the houses.  She stated that the applicant should apply for the full proposed size of dwelling from the outset.

Councillor Cheswright stressed that any planning conditions must be realistic and enforceable.  She also stated that off street parking by contractors’ vehicles often meant that it was very difficult for pedestrians and vehicles to negotiate the B1368. 

Councillor Cheswright was particularly concerned in respect of heavy goods vehicles using the narrow roads in the village, which were in close proximity to a number of listed buildings and where weight restrictions of 4.5 tons were in force.

Councillor Cheswright was also concerned in respect of the proposed siting and maintenance of the balancing pond, particularly as the Parish Council had requested that the pond’s location be reviewed to allow for more burial plots in the churchyard.

Councillor Cheswright was further concerned regarding the potential loss of hedgerows and sycamore trees on the site.  She stated that the homes must be built to lifetime home standards and must have wheelchair access.

Councillor Cheswright concluded that the Parish  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Tom Betts addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0314/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director advised that the applicant’s agent had confirmed that the school wished to use the synthetic turf pitch and floodlights for the same times as had been permitted for the existing pitch, i.e. 9.00 am to 10.00 pm daily.

Councillor Mrs R Cheswright stated that the proposed facilities would be of great benefit to students at Haileybury College.

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

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0314/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0355/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

In response to a query from Councillor M Alexander, the Director stated that after the 3 years had expired for any planning approval on this application, the applicant would have to apply for a renewal of planning permission or apply for a new house on the site.  Officers would then have the opportunity to judge whether this was justified on the site in relation to the viability of the business.

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

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0355/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Refusal.

Mr S Dennis addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0392/FP, planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report now submitted.

In response to a query from Councillor A Burlton, the Director stated that, if there was the suggestion of Officers meeting with the applicant in respect of the aspirations of the application and further solutions for the site, then Members could support the Officers’ recommendation for refusal and invite the applicant to meet with Officers.

Members could instead defer a decision to enable such discussions to take place, in order to achieve a greater respect of the character of Rochester House whilst adhering to the aspirations of the applicant.

Councillor M Newman commented that he was concerned that this application would adversely affect the symmetry of the frontage of the existing building.  He concurred with the Officers’ view that whilst the need for the extension to the building was acknowledged, these matters did not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the historical and architectural significance of the building.

Councillor A Burlton proposed and Councillor M Newman seconded, a motion that application 3/12/0392/FP be deferred to enable Officers to seek amendments to the scheme.

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

The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted and agreed to defer the application.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0392/FP, the matter be deferred to enable Officers to seek amendments to the scheme.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Gary Kemp addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0256/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor A Burlton commented that if the building was fully insulated and all the conditions were adhered to, then there should be no noise.  He stated however, that in a metal storage style building such as this, it may not be possible to adequately insulate against noise.

Councillor Burlton raised concerns relating to car parking, although he acknowledged the presence of a car park at the end of the road where this site was located.  He expressed concerns relating to the proposed hours of use being longer than any previous use of the site.

Councillor M Newman stressed that for any insulation to be effective, there must be a clearly defined decibel (dba) rating at a certain distance from the structure that was the subject of this application.

The Director advised that condition 4 in the report now submitted had been put forward by the applicant and Officers would consult with environmental health to ensure that there was limited transmission of noise from the site.

Councillor Burlton commented on the likely transmission of noise once the doors to the outside were opened during periods of warm weather.  Councillor G Williamson stated that users of the site would make a certain degree of noise when arriving outside the building and also when being picked up.

Councillor N Symonds was concerned relating to the level of traffic, both commercial and domestic, on what was a very narrow road.  Councillor Symonds was also concerned in respect of the lack of parking provision and the likely parking habits of the people using the site.

The Director advised that condition 3 restricted the hours of use to less than what had been applied to a similar use on a site adjacent to the one that was the subject of this application.  Councillor M Alexander stated that whilst he had no wish to restrict this type of use, he could not support this application.

The Director advised caution regarding resisting this application with regard to the hours of use given that similar applications with longer hours had been approved in units in close proximity to this site.

Councillor A Burlton proposed and Councillor M Alexander seconded, a motion that application 3/12/0256/FP be refused on the grounds that; the proposal failed to make adequate provision for pedestrian access to the building and therefore would result in direct conflict between pedestrians and general commercial traffic within the Industrial Estate, contrary to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework; insufficient information had been submitted in relation to noise operated by the proposed use and any steps to be taken to mitigate its impact, to enable the local planning authority to properly consider the impact of the development on neighbouring residential properties; and the proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

a) 3/12/0252/FP – Recommended for Refusal.

b) 3/12/0253/FP – Recommended for Refusal.

Jane Orsborn addressed the Committee in support of the applications.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of applications 3/12/0252/FP and 3/12/0253/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director read out a statement on behalf of the local ward Member, Councillor L Haysey.  Councillor Haysey referred to the letter from the applicant in that this set out the reasons why these applications should be approved.

The Director stated that Councillor Haysey had highlighted that Officers had acknowledged the need for the replacement dwellings.  She emphasised that Officers felt that the replacement dwellings should occupy the existing footprint of the dwellings that would be demolished.

Councillor Haysey had stated that there were sound reasons as to why the second dwelling should be located in a new position on the site.  Councillor Haysey also commented that the applicant and his structural engineer had felt that the Landscape Officer had not taken into account the reasons for the proposed siting of the two properties.

Councillor Haysey was of the view that these dwellings were necessary accommodation for workers in the agricultural sector and were not an unnecessary expansion of housing into the green belt.  Councillor Haysey had urged the Committee to grant both applications.

In response to comments from Councillor Mrs R Cheswright relating to concerns from neighbours regarding loss of privacy, the Director stated that this should not be an issue as there were no windows facing numbers 3 and 4 Penny Royal.

Councillor M Newman referred to there being no objection in principle to the applications.  He stated that building the plot 1 house towards the western extremity of the site would overcome any issues regarding the radius of influence of the trees.

Councillor Newman referred to the points mentioned in the report regarding alternative solutions to the problem of subsidence, other than the re-siting option put forward by the applicant.  He commented that there were always structural solutions for overcoming such issues and he felt that the reasons for building away from the existing footprints were not overwhelming.

Councillor N Symonds concurred with the points raised by the local Member and stated that building additional properties on the sodden clay soil would result in lots of problems.  She emphasised that the existing dwellings had a lot of cracks in the walls and were not fit for habitation.

The Director advised Members that there was an in principle objection to the building on plot 2 in the green belt.  Members were advised however that there was no in principle objection to replacement dwellings.  Officers had not been satisfied that sufficient information had been provided to justify the need for new dwellings on the site.  The Director referred to a range of engineering solutions that could be put in place on the site.

Councillor M Alexander proposed and Councillor A Burlton seconded, a motion that the Committee support the Director’s recommendations in respect of applications 3/12/0252  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0200/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 supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0200/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0375/FN, 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 supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0375/FN, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0467/FO, 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 supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0467/FO, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0328/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 supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0328/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0154/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 supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0154/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Ross Adams addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0244/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 supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0244/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Enforcement.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of the site relating to E/11/0403/A, enforcement action be authorised on the basis now detailed.

The Committee accepted the Director’s recommendation for enforcement action to be authorised in respect of the site relating to E/11/0403/A on the basis now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of E/11/0403/A, the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in conjunction with the Director of Internal Services, be authorised to take enforcement action on the basis now detailed.

Lucy Evans addressed the Committee in opposition to the inclusion of tree ‘T4’ in TPO 569 at Saffron Meadow, Standon.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services submitted a report regarding the resurvey and revocation of Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) numbered 49, 167, 171 and 345 as detailed in the report now submitted.  The Director’s report also requested the confirmation of replacement TPOs numbered 566, 567, 568 and 569.

The Director stated that the public speaker had objected to the inclusion of tree ‘T4’ in TPO 569 and Members could either resolve to remove this tree from the TPO or the Committee could confirm the TPO, on the condition that a replacement tree be planted elsewhere at the property should the applicant be successful in applying to remove tree ‘T4’.

Councillor D Andrews proposed and Councillor M Alexander seconded, a motion that tree ‘T4’ be excluded from TPO 569 at Saffron Meadow, Standon.

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

The Committee supported the Director’s recommendation regarding the resurvey and revocation of Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) numbered 49, 167, 171 and 345 on the basis now detailed.  The Committee also approved the Director’s recommendation in respect of replacement TPOs numbered 566, 567, 568 and 569 on the basis now detailed, subject to the removal of tree ‘T4’ from TPO 569.

RESOLVED – that (A) TPOs numbered 566, 567, 568 and 569 be confirmed, subject to the removal of tree ‘T4’ from TPO 569; and

(B)   TPOs numbered 49, 167, 171 and 345 be revoked.

(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.