Agenda and minutes

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

The following substitution of Committee Members had been made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules:

Councillor J. Quinton for Councillor S. Elam

An apology of absence was received from Councillor S. Elam

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2021 (previously circulated).

A decision to agree the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2021 was deferred and Officers would discuss issues raised by Councillor S. Elam, through Councillors J. Quinton and J. Ranshaw.

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

Councillors J. Ranshaw, D. Richardson and S. Tunstall declared interest in item 36 (Item 8 on the agenda) by virtue of being Members of the Crematorium Procurement Board and they would recuse themselves from the meeting for this item.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance).

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the planning permission of the erection of nine flats following the demolition of the existing dwelling on the site. The flats would be incorporated in one larger building, centrally sited in the plot, set back from the front of the plot by approximately 40m. The proposed building would measure approximately 25.8m in width by 22m in depth and 9.7m in height. The building is designed with the hipped main roof and central front gable projection with hipped roof projections to the sides. There would be two flat roof dormer window features to the front, first floor balconies to both the front and rear elevations and a rear facing roof terrace.

There would be four flats each at ground and first floor levels around a central lobby and one within in the roof space. They would be served by a staircase and a passenger lift. The development would be served by a parking and turning area to the front of the building incorporating 15 parking spaces. Access to the highway would be taken from the existing driveway from New Road which would be widened to accommodate two-way traffic.

The application was presented to this Committee on the 17 June 2021, and a further ecological survey of the site was undertaken to address the concerns raised with regards to the potential impact of the development upon badgers.

This application was presented to the Development Management Committee because Welwyn Parish Council had submitted a Major Objection.

Mr P. Hughes, spoke as the agent, stating that the proposed development would be in visual harmony with the area and noted that a very similar development had been approved in the neighbouring site by Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council. Additionally, the proposed development would be larger than the existing property. However, the development was an enhancement due to the high-quality design and appearance. The agent felt the plot of land would comfortably accommodate the development, parking and new planting; the latter would be substantial improvement due to an increase in biodiversity. Furthermore, the parking provisions met the councils’ adopted standards, and the retention of trees and vegetation protected the neighbours’ amenities and local wildlife. The agent noted that there was a lack of objections from the RSPB regarding Badgers or other protected species. The agent stated that the proposal effectively used an existing piece of sustainable land and would boost the supply of housing without intruding into the greenbelt. The development would count toward the Councils housing land supply, and the proposal was compliant with the adopted and emerging Local Plans, the NPPF and national design guidance.

Mr P. Oakenfull, spoke as an objector against the application, stating that his objection was on behalf of the Herts and Middlesex Badger Group. The group maintained that the proposal would have a great impact on badgers in the immediate area, and they would expect the developer to be required to carry out a badger impact assessment. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance).

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the planning permission of the erection of 2 dwellings following the demolition of the existing dwelling on the site. Plot 1 would be located in what would be the front garden of the existing dwelling, approximately 3.0m back from the highway on a plot of approximately 440 sqm. Plot 2 would be located deep into what is presently the back garden and between two existing properties (14 Firway and a newly constructed dwelling to the north) on a plot of approximately 555m in size.  Between the two dwellings would be a shared vehicle parking and garaging area serviced by a driveway that runs along the southern site boundary following the route of the existing driveway and utilising the existing highway access point. The development would be served by a parking and turning area in the central section to include 6 car parking spaces and 4 bicycle spaces.

This application was presented to the Development Management Committee because Welwyn Parish Council had submitted a Major Objection.

Members raised concern over the construction traffic that would amount due to the lack of footpaths and parking in the area.

Members asked about the post development landscaping and how the Council could make sure it took place. Officers stated that the landscaping was under condition to be maintained and implemented. The Legal representative informed Members that were the developer not to comply then the Council had legal power to ensure compliance.

Members questioned what trees would be lost. Officer stated that 7 trees would be felled, and the Councils Tree Officer did not feel the trees should be covered by a tree preservation order (TPO).

Members queried the location of parking on the site. Officer stated that the garages, bike store and bins were located in the middle of the site. This would also benefit from a power supply which could be used for EV charging points at a later date should it be required.

Members expressed full support for the application with regard to the design.

The Chair gave an overview of the main points raised throughout the discussion and concerns raised could be secured by condition.

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors B. Fitzsimon and N. Pace to accept the application and

          RESOLVED:

(Unanimous in favour) 

Subject to the conditions set out in the Officer report.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance).

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the planning permission to vary condition 3 (flood risk assessment), condition 5 (landscape management plan), condition 6 (cycle parking scheme), condition 7 (green roof), condition 10 (surface water drainage), condition 17 (disabled parking provision) and condition 18 (approved drawings) of planning permission 6/2019/1208/MAJ.

The principle and description of the development would remain the same and no additional buildings are proposed. The amendments include the reconfiguration of the entrance lobby, waiting area, vestry and AV room in the front of house, the office and admin areas to provide an entrance lobby and larger open plan office, the internal spaces in the cremator hall and the road layout. The main alterations to the external design involve the removal of an upper section of the chapel, a reduction in the size of the flower court, alterations to the memorial court and admin block to a more linear form of design and the removal of the level change between the front and back of house of the cremator hall. The works to the cremator hall include an increase in the height of the chimney, but this will be repositioned to reduce its overall appearance. The parking layout and landscaping has also been updated to reflect a more logical layout which aims to reduce congestion.

As the amendments to the approved drawings result in a difference in the footprint compared to the approved scheme, the surface water attenuation figures have been recalculated. Further details have been submitted in the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Addendum which additionally seeks to address the requirements of condition 3 (flood risk assessment).

This application was presented to the Development Management Committee because the application was a departure from the development plan and because the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council was the applicant.

Officers informed Members that two historic planning applications were not listed in the relevant planning history section (section 4) of the committee report. These applications were:

Application Number: 6/2016/2623/MAJ

Decision Date: 3 May 2017

Decision: Granted (subsequently challenged by judicial review and quashed)

Proposal: Erection of a new chapel, machinery store and crematory, to include new car parking provision and enhanced landscaping following demolition of existing chapel, machinery store, lodge house and central colonnade (Granted then quashed)

Application Number: 6/2019/1144/EIA

Decision Date: 3 February 2020

Decision: Granted

Proposal: Request for a screening opinion for Welwyn Hatfield Crematorium South Way Lawn Cemetery

Furthermore, Officers also stated that following the publication of the Officer report, an error was noted by Officers as the footprint percentage calculations (paragraphs 10.13 and 10.20) did not distinguish which parts of the proposal would constitute a 15% reduction from approved. For clarity, the total developed footprint would be approximately 15% less than the extant scheme, whereas the total developed area including the service yard would be approximately 4.5% less than the extant scheme.

In addition to this, Officers stated that there was an error in the wording for condition 15 in the report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance).

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the section 106 Planning obligations report 2020-21.

Planning obligations are an effective tool to secure the necessary infrastructure and services required as a result of development.  They also ensure that the negative impacts of a development can be adequately mitigated, for example increasing/improving public transport provision, increasing school capacity, enhancing open spaces, requiring that a given portion of housing is affordable, etc.  It is important to note that they cannot be used to mitigate the impact of any shortfall in existing infrastructure.

The purpose of planning obligations are to make development acceptable that would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms.  The National Panning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out in paragraph 57 that planning obligations can only be sought where they meet the following tests:

-        Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms

-        Directly related to the development; and

-        Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind in development.

Members were advised that S106 contributions could be sought from future developments above 10 residential units and to consider this in identifying potentially related infrastructure projects. Furthermore, contributions could also be sought from developments including employment or retail uses.

In addition, Members were asked to consider how they would like the Council to secure and spend Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions in future.

Members asked when the money would be received specifically in Healthcare, Mental Health and sports secured against a specific ward. Officers stated that schemes have to be implemented in which developers have up to 3 years to do so. Most contributions will become due on commencement of a scheme.

Members asked why there was a lack of social housing, and how many of the 174 affordable housing units secured was social housing. Officers stated current Policy requires developers to give 30% to affordable housing (the emerging Local Plan changes this and has a variety of percentages across the Borough) this 30% is then split between social rent and an intermediate product.  Officers stated that a breakdown of the174 units would be provided to Members.

Members asked whether S106 monies was a spend or lose it and if it is time limited. Officers stated that some say 5 years, and some say 10 years. Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council, as good practice tries to spend funds within 5 years of receipt. Officers stated that a small number of monies had been returned as it was surplus amount.

Members expressed gratitude to the officer for the report noting that it was easy to understand and full of useful information. The Chair thanked all Officers for their work.

RESOVLED:

Members noted the contents of the annual report.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance).

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) detailing recent appeal decisions for the period 3 August to 8 October 2021.

Member expressed an interest over the part allowed, part dismissed cases. Officers stated that each case is looked at on its own merit and for these particular cases there were concerns at the impact of development on neighbouring properties. These appeal decisions and others in the report indicate support from the Planning Inspectorate for the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Design.

RESOLVED:

That appeal decisions during the period be 3 August to 10 October 2021 be noted.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance).

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) providing the Committee with a summary of planning applications that may be presented to DMC in future.

Members asked whether the pausing of the Local Plan would cause more applications to come forward. Officer stated that the Local Plan was paused due to the Prime Minister’s comments, however it is business as usual.

          RESOVLED:

That future planning applications which might be considered by the Committee be noted.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance).

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) relating to the performance of the Development Management Service over a six-month period April to September 2021 (Quarters 2 and 3). It is worth noting to members that the Planning department software considers them to be quarters 2 and 3 as with the calendar year, rather than being quarters 1 and 2 as with the financial year.

Officers highlighted that the Council was assessed against government targets over a two-year time frame, and the Council is above the government targets despite a minor dip. Officer stated that some of the figures are sensitive by minor changes which could cause the data to dramatically change.

Officers stated that despite a challenging time within the Planning department in recruiting, they were still above government targets and the expected performance will increase.

Members raised that they had received complaints about planning officers stating that they were only contactable via email and not by phone due to them working from home. In addition, replies via email can take a very long time. Officers stated that they would look into the issue.

RESOVLED:

Members noted the contents of the report.