Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillor A Holt. It was noted that Councillor S Bull was substituting for Councillor A Holt.

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

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 6 December 2023.

Councillor Buckmaster proposed and Councillor Devonshire seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2023 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2023, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/22/2067/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

The Planning Officer summarised the main considerations pertinent to the application and presented a series of slides and visuals in respect of the proposed development. He said that the temporary vehicle access bridge was a replacement for a timber bridge that had been removed.

The Planning Officer said that access to the site was constrained by River Stort and the railway line. He summarised the appearance of the bridge and said that there was a neutral impact in visual terms.

The Planning Officer detailed the key policy considerations and said that the nearest residential property was 20 metres away. Members were advised that a concern had been expressed in respect of noise from cyclists using the footbridge. The Planning Officer stated that Officers considered that neighbour amenity would not be affected.

The Planning Officer talked about the flood risk assessments and the sequential test. Members were advised that there would be a minor loss of car parking spaces and no loss of riverbank. The Planning Officer said that the application was policy compliant and there would be compensatory parking and landscaping to compensate for the loss of hedging.

Councillor Stowe expressed a concern regarding the noise of the bridge surface and asked what could be done to mitigate the noise of the footway. Councillor Copley commented on the possibility of a rubber matting to mitigate the noise. She also commented on the signage and said that this was often ignored by users of the bridge.

The Planning Officer said that some sort of noise absorbent surface would be a possibility. He reminded Members that the existing surface did allow drainage and there would have to be some kind of compromise in that respect.

Councillor Copley explained that the signage and the road markings were incorrect, and the signage was directing pedestrians over the roadway. The Planning Officer explained that this was private land, and this would not be a matter for the highway authority. It would however be within the gift of the council to look into updating the road markings.

Councillor Watson said that the roadway section of the bridge was not particular friendly for cyclists. The Planning Officer confirmed that there was signage asking cyclists to dismount and proceed on foot. He said that there was no designated separate route for cyclists.

Councillor Devonshire said that the arrows directing the users of the bridge did need to be clarified as the instructions were confusing on both sides of the bridge. Councillor Estop said that the area between the bridges had the potential to be unsightly. She asked if this issue could be addressed via the landscaping condition.

The Planning Officer explained that there was a small of riverbank being retained and this could be used for planting and replacement hedging. The Chairman suggested that condition 2 be modified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 278.

The Chairman advised that at 2:20 pm this afternoon, Democratic Services had received an email from Councillor Jeff Jones (Hertfordshire County Council member for Buntingford division) in relation to addressing the committee regarding application 3/21/2509/FUL.

As per the Council constitution, paragraph 6.4.2 sets out that all speaking requests must be made by 5pm two working days prior to the meeting.

Then Chairman said that under the constitution, the committee can depart as it sees fit from the speaking arrangements on certain applications, in accordance with paragraph 6.4.5 of the constitution. The committee could agree to depart from the speaking arrangements and would need to vote on this.

Councillor Estop proposed and Councillor Hill seconded, a motion that in accordance with paragraph 6.4.5 in Section 6 – Regulatory Committees of the constitution, the committee agree to depart from the speaking arrangements of the Development Management Committee, to allow Hertfordshire County Councillor Jeff Jones (Buntingford division) to address the committee for 3 minutes in respect of application 3/21/2509/FUL.

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

RESOLVED – that in accordance with paragraph 6.4.5 in Section 6 – Regulatory Committees of the constitution, the committee agree to depart from the speaking arrangements of the Development Management Committee, to allow Hertfordshire County Councillor Jeff Jones (Buntingford division) to address the committee for 3 minutes in respect of application 3/21/2509/FUL.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/21/2509/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

The Principal Planning Officer summarised the application and set out the policy context with a particular reference to the planning policies regarding Gypsy and Traveller sites. She referred to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS).

The Principal Planning Officer detailed the consultee responses and referred to the comments of Hertfordshire Highways. She detailed the relevant planning history and talked about water supply, the treatment of waste, biodiversity and drainage. Members were presented with a series of photos, plans and elevation drawings.

Mr Andreou addressed the committee in respect of his concerns regarding the application. Councillor Anne Downes (Westmill Parish Council) and Councillor Jeff Jones (Hertfordshire County Council) also addressed the committee.

Following a question from Councillor Estop, the Principal Planning Officer set out in detail the operation of the Herts Lynx Bus Service. Councillor Copley asked about the other considerations in terms of what would make this site sustainable for Gypsy and Traveller pitches.

The Team Leader (Strategic Applications) said that the first consideration was the hierarchy of villages. He said that there was a degree of accessibility to the limited services in the group 2 village of Westmill. He referred to the site as being 100 to 200 metres away from the village and the site was considered to be sustainable in that regard. Members were referred to relevant appeal case law and were advised that the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 279.

(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.

Councillor Devonshire referred to the yarn bomb above the fishmongers in Hertford and charitable donations and the promotion of this business. He referred in particular to the unfortunate media coverage in respect of enforcement action.

The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that normal procedure had been followed in respect of enforcement action following a registered enforcement complaint.

There was no urgent business.