Agenda and minutes

 Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Stephen King and Alex Hayward with Councillors Stephen Cox and Reena Ranger as the named substituted Members.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 12 August 2021 and the reconvened Planning Committee meeting held on 19 August 2021 were confirmed as a correct record by the Committee and were signed by the Chair.

Items of other business notified under Council Procedure Rule 30 to be announced, together with the special circumstances that justify their consideration as a matter of urgency. The Chair to rule on the admission of such items.

The Chair advised that item 5 Consideration of Objections and Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order 923 (Manor House, Abbots Langley) 2020, the report had been published on time however, some background papers had been published later. The Chair had agreed to take the report and background papers as urgent so the Committee could make a decision on the TPO.

To receive any declarations of interest.

Councillor Reena Ranger declared a pecuniary interest in item 9 and would

leave the meeting for this application.

Councillor Stephen Cox advised that as a Ward Councillor they had been present and involved in meetings with Council staff and residents at Ann Shaw Gardens. Notwithstanding this, the Councillor would approach planning application 21/1669/FUL (Installation of ‘catch-ball’ net fencing to eastern boundary of play area at ANN SHAW GARDENS PLAY AREA, SOUTH OXHEY, WATFORD, WD19 7AT) made by Three Rivers District Council with an open mind and on its planning merits in accordance with the development plan and along with any material planning considerations.

Councillors Ruth Clark and Sara Bedford declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 5 as a Member of Abbots Langley Parish Council but would remain for the item and vote.

Councillor Steve Drury read out the following statement to the Committee:

“All Members are reminded that they should come to meetings with an open mind and be able to demonstrate that they are open minded. You should only come to your decision after due consideration of all the information provided, whether byplanning officers in the introduction, byapplicants/agents, by objectors or by fellow Councillor’s. The Committee Report in itself is not the sole piece of information to be considered. Prepared speeches to be read out are not a good idea. They might suggest that you have already firmly made up your mind aboutan applicationbefore hearingany additionalinformation provided on the night and they will not take account of information provided on the night. You must always avoid giving the impression of having firmly made up your mind in advance no matter that you might be pre-disposed to any view.”

The Principal Tree and Landscape Officer provided some background details on the report and advised that 5 objections had been received to the TPO which were outlined in the report.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke against the making of the TPO.

Councillor Reena Ranger said the trees were located on common land and asked if the neighbours and residents understood who owned the Land and who the trees belonged to? The Officer believed the trees stood on Parish Council land or land that was leased to Abbots Langley Parish Council by the Council as they were responsible for the maintenance of the trees. There was a narrow strip of land between the boundary that the trees stood on and the rear of the properties which was believed to be privately owned.

Councillor Sara Bedford knew some of the land was on a long lease from the County Council and that the Parish Council paid a five figure sum to buy in the services of an arboriculturist to look at the safety of all the trees in the public areas. The trees were visible from Stanfield, the High Street and Gallows Hill Lane and were beautiful trees and thought it was not unreasonable to have TPOs placed on them and have any work authorised and carried out in a manner to preserve them.

The Chair advised that there were 2 options available to the Committee. Option 1 - To confirm the Order and make the TPO permanent.

Option 2 - Not to confirm the Order, and allow the TPO to lapse.

Councillor Sara Bedford moved, seconded by Councillor Stephen Cox the recommendation for Option 1 – to confirm the Order and make the TPO permanent

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being unanimous/by general assent.

RESOLVED:

That the Order should be confirmed, and TPO923 made permanent.

The Planning Officer reported there were no updates but wanted to reiterate and make sure it was clear, there had been a previous application which Members had considered at the end of last year which was refused but that related to a change of use. This application was regarding internal alterations and some alterations to the frontage which tie in with the advertisement consent which had been previously granted. There was no change of use proposed.

Councillor Debbie Morris moved that Planning Permission be Granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report, seconded by Councillor Keith Martin.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and

informatives set out in the officer report.

The Planning Officer reported that following discussions with Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) it was confirmed that the parking bays to the front of the application site were maintained by them. Additionally, the bays currently have no parking restrictions and therefore no prior agreement is required from TRDC or HCC to suspend their use for parking. However the land subject to the bays is owned by Maclean Homes Ltd so prior agreement would be required between both parties prior to construction works. In light of this it was necessary and reasonable to ensure that evidence of prior agreement was sought before works commenced. The Planning Officer therefore proposed to amend Condition C16 (Construction Management Plan) to read:

“No development shall take place whatsoever until evidence in writing has been provided to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) demonstrating that prior agreement has been secured from the land owner to temporary suspend the use of the parking bays throughout the construction phase as shown at Figure 3 within the revised Construction Management Plan, version 2, Page 12. Following confirmation from the Local Planning Authority in writing that such agreement establishes the right to suspend the parking bays all development shall be undertaken in full compliance of the Construction Management Plan, Version 2 prepared by Southdown Safety prepared on behalf of Westfield Homes Ltd and shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.”

HCC had also confirmed that the swept path drawings were acceptable and having spoken to Environmental Protection they had confirmed that the refuse trucks used to go down East Glade and Holbein Gate are a height of 3.75 metres, a width of 2.5 metres and a length of 11.25 metres. Environmental Protection also confirmed they had no issues with collections to East Glade and Holbein Gate as a result of the size of the refuse trucks which are larger than the vehicles set out within the revised Construction Management Plan (CMP). Members would have also seen sight of a letter from the Director of The Limes which was sent today stating that the applicant had no legal right to access to The Limes.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke in support of the application and another member of the public spoke against the application.

Batchworth Community Councillor Craig Coren spoke on the application stating that at the time of the original application Batchworth Community Council had objected to the application with the reasons set out in the report. In the event that the Committee were minded to grant permission to the variation requested they felt that the proposed CMP needed enhancing to look after the residents and wished to put forward the following points:

• The developer works closely with the residents with assistance from the Community Council;

• At Clause 8.2 it talks about part loaded vehicles but this needs tightening as it would be impossible to control;

• Clause 8.2b it talks about large deliveries but from experience this would cause congestion  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC59/21

The Planning Officer reported there was no update.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Sara Bedford thought the comments in point 7.1.10 and 7.1.8 summed up very neatly why this was not an unreasonable application despite its isolated Green Belt location. One of the ways we preserve the countryside was to have people living in it. Where there are existing dwellings we should be encouraging people to live in them and be able to have a reasonable sized modern house. The Councillor moved that Planning Permission be Granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report, seconded by Councillor Chris Lloyd. Councillor Lloyd noted that the application had been called in by Sarratt Parish Council and wondered if they were attending the meeting or had given a reason why they were not at the meeting as they would have liked to have heard their views.

The Planning officer advised that initially they did not have sight of the plans but the Case Officer did go back to them with the plans which they saw. As Members can see from the report they still wished the application to come to Committee. The reasons for them calling the application in were clarified in the

officer report at point 7.1.10.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 10 For, O Against and 1 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report.

Councillor Reena Ranger left the meeting.

The Planning Officer reported that there was no update but some Members who had been on the Committee a while may recall that an application was considered by the Committee and ultimately approved following amendments in August 2018. This application had not been implemented within the 3 year period therefore this new application had been submitted. Essentially it was the same as the previous application permitted in August 2018.

Councillor Chris Lloyd said as it was the same application as 3 years ago they would move that Planning Permission be Granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report, seconded by Councillor Raj Khiroya.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 8 For, 0 Against and 2 Abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report.

Councillor Reena Ranger re-joined the meeting.

The Planning Officer reported that there was no update. Photographs were shown the Committee illustrating where the proposed netting would be. No comments had been received on the application.

Councillor Stephen Cox said the minute the gardens were turned into a lovely play area local people wished to play football and sometimes were erratic in their shooting and the ball often landed in the garden of 16 Ferryhills Close which had caused a lot of problems. This solution seemed the best way to proceed. Once the laurel bushes had grown to their full height it would stop the balls going into the garden. The application had come forward following a meeting with the residents, officers and Councillors.

Councillor Stephen Cox moved that Planning Permission be Granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report, seconded by Councillor Chris Lloyd.

Councillor Sara Bedford asked for details on the exact form of fencing as they knew of two areas in their Ward where fences were put up for this purpose but had found they made a lot of noise when a ball was kicked on them so can we be sure it was not a type which makes lots of noise when a ball is kicked against it.

The Planning Officer understood it was mesh fencing but would discuss with Leisure colleagues to ensure that noise from vibrations had been considered. Checks would be done before the fence was put up.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be Granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report.

Chair