Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Skottowe for whom Councillor Quinton attended as a substitute.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2024 (previously circulated).

The minutes of the meeting held on 27^th June 2024 were approved as a correct record.

There were no notifications of urgent business.

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

Councillor Trigg declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda Item 6 and would leave the room for the discussion and vote.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Committee received a report on the erection of 73 residential units, to include access, landscaping, private and communal amenity space, vehicle parking, cycle,

refuse and recycling storage, public open space and other associated supporting infrastructure. Details of the site were set out in the agenda.

The application was presented to the Development Management Committee

because Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council had submitted a Major Objection.

Sean Marten, agent for the application, addressed the Committee as follows:

“I am here today to assure you of our commitment to deliver a quality development in your authority and confirm that we fully intend to implement this permission as soon as you grant the necessary consents.

Stonebond is a family, run business that had been developing home since 1975.

We are proud to have created aspirational homes that go beyond the standard level of quality that you will see on many housing schemes. We treat each site differently and do not believe in a one size fits all approach. The application before you is a culmination of four years of collaborative work through the Local Plan and Planning application process.

Prior to this Committee I circulated to the Members a summary of our proposals which I hope you have found useful. The summary identifies the wider benefits of the scheme and compliance with the relevant local and national planning policies.

We are aware that the Parish Council have raised concerns of elements of the scheme and we have sought to respond to these positively during the planning process.

We understand there has been concern around highways impact and we have worked collaboratively with the relevant statutory experts to ensure that these concerns have been appropriately mitigated. There have been no objections from any of the consultees for technical reasons that would justify a refusal.

The scheme has the full support of relevant stakeholders, including Welwyn Hatfield’s Housing Team who provide support for the mixture of homes which include starter and family market housing and a combination of social rent, affordable rent and shared ownership. Tt is clear from the Committee report that over £1.6 million would be contributed to make significant improvements locally. These improvements cannot happen without the approval of this application.

Our intention for all our scheme is to permit future residents to adopt a healthy and sustainable lifestyle. This scheme is no different and has been designed to actively facilitate and encourage it. The scheme embodies features that support these, which include all homes are energy efficient homes, and not to utilise gas boilers, planting of 160 new trees, the creation of biodiversity net gain in excess of the 10% policy requirement and the creation of two and a half acres of landscaped open space.

Our proposals have been designed to create a landscape led development which is shown on the screen, with modern architecture and our team has worked closely with your officers and the consultees to refine the layout and the appearance of the scheme to something we  ...  view the full minutes text for item 163.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Committee received a report seeking permission for the change of use of an existing commercial unit from Class E to sui generis, including the installation of an extraction flute to the rear of the building and internal reconfiguration to accommodate the new takeaway business.

It was noted that the proposals had been amended during the course of

the application to include the details of the proposed plant location and removal of the alterations initially proposed to the shopfront.

The application was presented to the Development Management Committee

because Councillor Moore and Thompson had called in the application for the following reasons:

1.    It had attracted unusually high level of public interest.

2.    The application raised sensitive planning issues in the Conservation Area and vicinity close to two schools.

3.    the impact on neighbour amenity from the proposed takeaway use and its opening hours.

Jonathan Angell spoke against the application as follows

“I'm one of 20 residents have objected to the application, the majority living within about 200 metres [of the application]. It is not difficult to see why local residents are concerned. In reality, Marsden Road parade is much smaller than other neighborhood centres and the shops are very close on all sides to residential properties. I can't emphasise that I think that it's a bit disingenuous to say that they are 10 and 18 metres away. There are gardens that are much closer to that. Several residential properties overlook, or about the shops and the extract fans will vent essentially into the garden. I think if it was 189 Handside Lane to the rear of the shops.

So various concerns are being raised in the 20 objections, including the smell from the extract fans, litter which will inevitably be deposited all over the place by people eating their fish and chips and also by people who are walking back to school or home so the bins in the area I don't really address that problem. There is general disruption from having a shop unit open until 10 or 10.30pm in a predominantly residential area, and again I would just emphasise that quite a few properties abut the property orthey overlooking it. There's inevitable noise and anti-social behaviour but just to focus on the parking and highways issues.

I understand that you now are aware of the objection has been received from the at the parking officer and they highlight various significant concerns about increased parking demand in and around the location, and it seems really surprising that these concerns weren’t mentioned explicitly in the planning report.

The shops on a busy junction between Handside Lane and Marsden Road, and since there are parking restrictions in the area, residents and their visitors often park outside the shops, so the number of available spaces, despite what that photo suggests, is generally very limited and people visiting the shops often double park or they park on the verges in breach of planning restrictions.

As the parking service made clear, a fish  ...  view the full minutes text for item 164.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The report contained three dismissed decision and contained a cost award for an application of 73 Bridge Road East. The costs agreed were for a sum of £48,213.82. The original cost application was for a higher sum but officers had worked hard to scrutinise and reduce the costs incurred.

The Committee noted the appeal decisions report for the period 18^th June 2024 to 15^th July 2024.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Committee noted the future planning applications report.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

It was noted that applications had remain steady and targets for decisions on applications were on target. There had been a reduction on planning enforcement.

The Committee noted the development management performance report.