Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Steve Drury and Stephen King with the named substitutes being Councillors Raj Khiroya and Stephen Cox. 

An apology for absence was also received from Councillor Ian Morris.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 25 May 2023.

The minutes from the Planning Committee Meeting held on 25 May 2023 were confirmed as a correct record 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.

There were no items of other business.

To receive any declarations of interest.

Where a member of this Planning Committee is also a member of a Parish Council they are entitled to take part in any debate at this Committee on an application within that Parish area provided that the Councillor

·          has an open mind about the application

·          is not bound by the views of the Parish Planning Committee and

·          can deal with the application fairly and on its merits at Committee

The Chair read out the following statement to the Committee:

All fellow Councillors should come to the Committee meeting with an open mind and be able to demonstrate that they have not pre-determined our decision in any way.  We must only reach a decision after consideration of all the information provided by the officers, applicants, members of the public and other Councillors and the planning policies of the Council and should not do anything which may lead others to believe that we have already made up our minds as to whether to approve or refuse an application. 

Councillor Raj Khiroya declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 5 (22/1912/OUT - Outline application: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of up to 50 dwellings with associated access, parking, amenity space, landscaping and SuDs basin (Appearance, Layout, Landscaping and Scale as reserved matters) at 24 Denham Way and Land to the Rear, Maple Cross) as they had visited the site as a Local Ward Councillor and would leave the meeting.

Councillor Raj Khiroya left the meeting.

The Planning Officer reported that Herts Ecology had provided comments but had raised no objection to the development of the site.  All the detailed matters raised can and will be addressed via the Section 106 obligations securing 10% biodiversity net gain and at reserved matters stage where details on layout and landscaping will be provided. An air quality assessment had been provided by the applicant in response to the initial comments from the Environmental Health Officer.  The Environmental Health Officer had reviewed the report and considered its conclusions acceptable subject to the inclusion of a pre-commencement condition requiring submission of a dust management plan.  The recommendation would therefore be amended to remove any reference to the Environmental Health Officer.  Condition 13 is duplicated within the wording of Condition 5 and thus Condition 13 will be deleted.

The Planning Officer summarised this is an outline application for up to 50 units of which 50% would be affordable.  The matters for consideration this evening are only access and the principal of the development of the site.  The finer details of layout, appearance, landscaping and scale would be assessed at a subsequent reserved matters stage should this outline application be deemed acceptable.  Any consent would be subject to the completion of a Section 106 which would include Heads of Terms to secure on site affordable housing, biodiversity net gain and open space provision. 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke in support of the application emphasising points on the balance of flats and houses, layout, height of buildings, 50% affordable housing, sustainability, biodiversity net gain, play area provision and urban wildlife strategy.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke on behalf of local residents against the application emphasising points on how the development would impact on the open green space around their properties, biodiversity loss, loss of wildlife and habitation, invasion of privacy, pollution, out of character, implications of additional traffic on the highway junction, impact on local services including the local doctors and loss of significant local building.

Members of the Committee made the following points:

There was not much reference or weight given to the loss of commercial business.  Whilst they appreciated that there was only one business on site at present the report did state that there was no evidence that the site would not be attractive for other commercial uses. 

In justifying the recommendation reference is made to the impact of the residential development being only at a localised level.  Any development in Green Belt has an impact on a localised level and queried why there was a justification for building on the Green Belt. 

On the impact on the Local Heritage asset and the statement the applicant had provided that there would be no impact on the Grade II listed buildings and locally listed building, there was no Conservation Officer comments and wondered why the Conservation Officer had not been instructed when there is potential for  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC16/23

The Planning Officer reported that this application had come forward following a decision made in March by the Committee who had refused the previous scheme on the grounds that the replacement roof had failed to replicate the original roof and loss of the stepped roof form leading to an unsympathetic replacement.  Upon the finalisation of the officer report, Batchworth Community Council advised that following a review of the amended plans they wished to withdraw their call-in request.  They had commented that “we note the revised scale and that the bulk and massing of the roof now seems to have corrected previous comments raised and seemed acceptable.  The proposed design was more in keeping with the original form and design.  This is a Pre 1958 property and the rear dormer windows are now the same size but request that the Council ensure that the windows do not have a negative impact on neighbouring dwellings.  Any windows in the side elevation to be obscured glazed and any velux windows to be top level opening only.  They also commented on the importance of all future works to be constructed in accordance with the approved plans.”  The Conservation Officer was reconsulted with regard to the amended plans and had no objections.  In response the Community Council comments officers do not consider that the dormer windows would have an impact on privacy of neighbouring dwellings as set out in the report.  Condition 3 requires a Construction Demolition Method Statement to be submitted prior to any further works on site.  The plans do not include any flank roof lights as they were removed during the planning process.  There would be no additional first floor flank windows which are required to be obscurely glazed. The ground floor windows are such that officers do not consider they would result in harm to neighbours.

Members made the following points:

Condition 4 talks about the requirement for samples and details of proposed external materials to be provided and asked if the condition could be amended to incorporate the Conservation Officer comments on the new windows and the details on doors, eaves, verges and cills to be submitted.  Did the door reference include the garage door.

Councillor Debbie Morris moved, duly seconded, that permitted development rights be removed.  There will be 16.5% plot coverage but under the Conservation Area Appraisal the recommended plot coverage was 15%.

The Planning Officer advised that if Members believe that the condition needs to be strengthened in accordance with the Conservation Officer comments the condition could be amended.  The garage door is being retained and not replaced.  On removing permitted development rights, the Committee need to consider whether it is reasonable and meets the test as set out in the NPPF as we can be challenged.  With regard to this development, they would not be able to utilise much permitted development rights in respect of extensions to the house because they had been used up from this application.  The Conservation Area does have specific restrictions applied  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC17/23