Agenda and minutes

To note any substitution of Committee Members made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules.

The following substitution of Members was made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules:

Cllr Lucy Musk for Cllr Cathy Watson.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Cathy Watson.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 July 2023 (previously circulated).

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 July 2023 were approved as a correct record.

There were no items of urgent business and no items withdrawn from the agenda.

To note declarations of Members’ disclosable pecuniary interests, non-disclosable pecuniary interests and non-pecuniary interests in respect of items on the Agenda.

Cllrs S Boulton and F Thomson advised they were members of Hertfordshire County Council.

There were no items of urgent business.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Planning Officer advised the application was before Committee as Northaw and Cuffley Council had submitted a major objection which was subsequently downgraded to an objection. While there was no major objection which would require the application to come before Committee, the application remained on the agenda as the agenda had been published prior to the major objection being downgraded.

The Planning Officer presented the report as set out in the agenda. This was a householder application for the erection of two storey rear, part single storey and part two storey side and front extensions, incorporating a new roof structure with raised ridge height and associated alterations. In the dismissed appeal, the Inspector’s decision was on a single issue, the hipped design of the roof, and the current application was for a gabled design. This would raise the roof height by 10mm compared to the previous application which was considered de minimus. The Parish Council’s objection did not identify any harm from the proposal and in officers’ opinion, none would occur. The amendments to the design roof had overcome the previous reasons for refusal of planning permission as well as the single issue raised within the Inspector’s appeal decision. There was no conflict with any current or emerging policies or national policy and the application was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.  

Robert Stubbs, registered to speak as a resident but addressing the meeting in a Parish Councillor capacity, spoke regarding the application:

“I’m going to explain why we have reduced our objection from major to just an objection. When the Parish Council takes a view, it takes it purely on the paperwork submitted with the application; we don’t have any qualified planners so it’s very much laypeople taking a common sense view. This tends to lead to a more cautious approach in terms of objections where perhaps we go for a major objection in more cases than we should. In this case, frankly, we got it wrong. We misapplied one of the neighbourhood planning policies and there should only have been an objection. So why are we in front of this Committee? I need to explain process and a bit more detail.

We only get to see the officer report five working days before this Committee sits. To change our view as a Parish Council, being a democratic organisation, we need to convene a meeting, consider the officer report and then reconsider our decision. Five days is very tight, unrealistic and unreasonable to allow us to do that. We had no advance warning of the case officer’s view or rationale in relation to the key issues. This is the key issue on our neighbourhood plan. We only became aware of the difference of interpretation when we got the public agenda five working days ago. We see no reason why we can’t have a summary of the planning officer’s position many more days or possibly weeks in advance of five working days; that will give us a better opportunity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Planning Officer introduced the report as set out in the agenda.  The application was for the retention of fencing following removal of two kissing gates. The application was before DMC as it had been called in by Cllr Rowse.

Three late representations had been received bringing the total number of representations to 50. There were 26 objections, 21 comments in support and 3 comments. Hertfordshire Constabulary had commented in support of the application.

One of the kissing gates had been removed and fenced off over six years ago and the other was removed and fenced off in 2020.  Due to substantial vegetation between the site boundaries and Roe Hill Park, there were limited views of the fencing to the south of the site from Roe Hill Park. Views of the fencing to the north of the site were visible when entering or leaving the park via the alleyway to the north of the site due to its positioning and limited screening. The design and scale of the fencing was not considered to detract from the character or appearance of the area and would be in keeping with the residential setting of the site.

The gates provided direct and convenient access into Roe Hill Park from the application site and allowed park users into the application site. The park was the closest open or public amenity space for residents of the application site and the alleyway was now the most direct way for residents to access the park since the fencing was implemented.

Some residents had commented that since the gates were closed, accessing Roe Hill Park was more difficult and inconvenient; the alleyway did not feel safe and people who were not residents of the site were using the gates to access the site which had led to antisocial behaviour.  Hertfordshire Constabulary had commented in support of the fencing and said that reports of crime and antisocial behaviour had reduced since the gates were closed.            

Due to the closure of the gates, residents of the site now had to leave the application site to access the alleyway in order to access Roe Hill Park, an increase in distance and therefore journey time compared to using the gates.  

It was noted in recent site visits that there was some litter in the vegetation that lined the alleyway; no other antisocial behaviour had been observed.

Local and national policy emphasised the importance of access to good standard amenity space and external open spaces. Safe, convenient and direct routes should ensure such spaces were easy to access for all. Vegetation from the alleyway did not prevent it being used and it was suitable for people with limited mobility, wheelchairs and pushchairs. It was acknowledged that the most direct route into Roe Hill Park from the application site were the gates; however the alleyway to the north of the site was considered safe, convenient and straightforward as a route to the park. On the basis that safe, convenient and straightforward access to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

Officers advised that five of the appeal decisions listed had been dismissed and two had been allowed. Of those allowed, one was a change of use from a house to an HMO which had been refused on parking grounds; the Inspector said during their visit that although there were a number of parked cars, they thought the space was adequate and allowed the appeal on that basis. The other was a domestic extension refused on design and amenity grounds; the Inspector allowed an appeal on both grounds. Of the dismissed appeals, one was a public enquiry at Bradmore Way and another was at Roebuck Farm; both were housing developments that were refused and the Inspector found in both cases that the harm to the Green Belt was not outweighed by the very special circumstances including housing and affordable housing put forward by the appellants.    

RESOLVED:

Members noted the content of the report.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

Officers presented the report as set out in the agenda. Members noted the reason for call-ins was no longer in the report and officers explained this could be extensive and it was felt more appropriate to have a shorter report with the reasons for call-in online; staff  would look at whether a link to the reason for call-ins could be supplied in future reports.

RESOLVED:

Members noted the content of the report.