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 G. Michaelides for Councillor N. Pace

Councillor A. Hellyer for Councillor B. Fitzsimon

Councillor P. Smith for Councillor T. Travell

Councillor P. Zukowskyj for Councillor S. Elam

Councillor H. Quenet for Councillor J. Ranshaw

Apologies of absence was received from Councillors N. Pace, B. Fitzsimon, T. Travell, S. Elam and J. Ranshaw.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 9^th September and 21^st October 2021 (previously circulated).

RESOLVED:

(Unanimous in Favour)

The minutes of the meeting held on 21^st October 2021 were approved as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

(4 in favour, 5 abstentions, 3 against)

The minutes of the meetings held on 9^th September 2021 were approved as a correct record.

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

Councillor P. Zukowskyj declared non-pecuniary interests in items on the Agenda as appropriate by virtue of being a Member of Hertfordshire County Council.

Report of the Head of Planning.

Report of the Head of Planning on the erection of a part three storey/part four storey flat roof building containing 12 flats (nine 1-beds and three 2-beds) and associated works. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the building would be taken from The Meadway at two separate points and the existing access from Station Road would be closed off. A 12-space surface level car park would be provided on-site as well as a secure cycle and refuse/recycling store adjacent to the vehicular access.

Councillor Bob Stubbs, spoke on behalf of Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council, stating that the Parish Council did not object to residential development at this site or the flat roof design. The key objections had been the design, including the height and the carpark. The proposed 4 storeys led to a roof garden and the design was unsympathetic, and out of context and character to the surrounding buildings that vary in styles but maintained a traditional look. The Parish council felt that parking on the proposed development was insufficient to the area as it would not accommodate households with two cars or provide parking for visitors or deliveries to the site.

Members discussed concerns raised by local residents about the potential for the land to be contaminated, as a previous function of the site was believed to be a fuel station. Members stated that fuel leakages could be dangerous and building works on the site could cause greater contamination to aquifers.  The recommended ‘unexpected finds’ condition was not considered sufficient.  Officers stated that the Council’s Public Health & Protection Officers had been consulted in this regard and the Council’s database on contaminated land did not show signs of potential contamination at the site.  However, having regard to the comments received and for the avoidance of doubt, it was agreed that the condition could be varied to require testing or at least a desktop study prior to commencement.

Members asked whether piling construction would be used and whether the Environment Agency had been informed. Officers stated that piled foundations would likely be used and noted that whilst the Environmental Agency gave no response when consulted on the application, the use of piling was not known when they had been written to. Member asked for a condition to be added which would allow further consultation to take place on the piling construction approach to protect the aquifer. The Legal advisor agreed that this could be done via a condition.

Members discussed the height of the building. Officers stated that building is 3 to 4 storeys with the tallest section being the stairwell. The design also had a flat roof and would be stepped to reduce the visual impact of the development.

Members raised parking policy and standards for new developments, and in particular whether there was any disabled parking proposed for the new development. Officers stated the site was deemed to be sustainable as the bus and train stations were nearby, alongside other parking facilities. The residential streets surrounding the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

Report of the Head of Planning.

Report of the Head of Planning on the expansion and adaptation of the existing surface car park, including construction of a new single suspended level parking deck, to accommodate 490 parking bays in total. The proposed expansion would result in an increase of 156 car parking spaces. The proposed open aspect car parking deck would have an area of 4342sqm and would accommodate 191 parking spaces. The upper deck would be accessed via a ramp which had a total width of approximately 9.7m, located roughly in the centre of the building. Vehicular access to the car park is from The Campus at a left in / left out priority junction. There would be three pedestrian accesses via the proposed staircases to the upper deck.  The upper deck would measure approximately 75m in length, 63m in width and would be around 5.5m in height to the top of the barriers and 7.5m to the top of the proposed staircases. The deck would be constructed from a steel frame structure with steel cladding, aluminium cladding fins and open mesh barriers forming an enclosure to the structure at first floor level. This would be lit by new lighting columns split across the deck.  The proposals would also require a minor reconfiguration of the existing surface parking layout to accommodate the upper deck, resulting in a reduction of parking spaces at the ground floor from 344 to 299.  It was important to note that whilst this is a standalone application, it is linked to a wider development in the area, as this is intended to consolidate parking from elsewhere to enable other sites in the town centre to be redeveloped (notably The Campus East Car Park). As such, this proposed additional parking is a replacement rather than additional parking for the town as a whole.

Dai Hannaford, spoke as the agent, stated that Welwyn Garden City had potential to enhance its facilities in the town and the additional deck at Campus West would facilitate changes to the town. The contractor had been responsible for high quality car park designs which included the new multi storey car park in Hatfield. The design of the carpark on a brownfield site arose through consultations, all of whom agreed with the design. It was stated that protecting trees was always essential and more landscaping would be added to the site. The development would help local residents coming to the town, would have EV charging and cycle storage. This development would pave the way for future residential developments in other parts of the town.

Karen Winbow, spoke as an objector, stated that the development did not comply with a range of policies, would be built in a conservation area and cause harm to heritage assets. The lighting would exacerbate the development, and she felt the design was ugly and basic. It was stated that there was a reduced need for parking due to behavioural changes since the start of the covid19 pandemic and the public’s view had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

Report of the Head of Planning.

Report of the Head of Planning on the erection of up to 121 dwellings, of which 35% would be affordable (42 units).  The proposed density for the site is 25 approximately dwellings per hectare.  The majority of the buildings across the site will be 2 to 2.5 storeys, with heights restricted to 2 storeys along the northern site boundary, which is adjacent to existing residential buildings and also the highest part of the site. The development proposed a range of house types, sizes, and tenures in order to provide a wide choice of homes, able to accommodate a variety of household types and thereby creating a mixed and inclusive community.  The final mix of houses to be provided would form part of a subsequent Reserved Matters application. Vehicle access into the development would be taken from Northaw Road East as a simple T-junction.  The illustrative layout includes pedestrian friendly links across the site providing connectivity between the existing residential development in the north and the public footpaths and playing fields to the south. Landscaping and areas of open space are proposed throughout the site, including the provision of amenity space in the south-eastern corner of the site and at the centre of the development.  Existing vegetation surrounding the site would be retained and enhanced, where appropriate.  Details of the open space and landscape proposals would form part of subsequent Reserved Matters applications.The application also includes the change of use of land to the south-west of KGV Playing Fields (Site B) from agricultural land to an extension of the playing fields.  This land is to be transferred to the Parish Council to enable them to enhance the existing sports facilities at KGV. The application is accompanied by Parameter Plans detailing green infrastructure, land use, proposed levels and building heights which are submitted for approval as part of this application. 

The site is located in an area which is designated as Green Belt under Policy GBSP1. The NPPF makes it clear that the Government attaches great importance to the Green Belt and the protection of its essential characteristics.  The NPPF advises that construction of new buildings is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The NPPF defines one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt to be its openness.  There is no formal definition of openness but, in the context of the Green Belt, it is generally held to refer to an absence of development.  The scheme would incur harm as inappropriate development and would impose various levels of harm through loss of openness and through encroachment.  To that extent the proposal would conflict with Policy GBSP1 of the District Plan. The applicant accepts that the proposal is inappropriate development and have set out their case for very special circumstances within the Planning Statement which accompanied this application.  What constitutes very special circumstances will depend  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

Report of the Head of Planning.

Report of the Head of Planning on a two-storey side extension measuring approximately 4.17m in width at the front and 2.15m in width at the rear, and a single storey side extension measuring approximately 2.5m in width. The existing two storey front projection would be increased in width by approximately 2.6m. The proposal would also incorporate a lower ground floor level basement with a home cinema, gym and sitting room. The basement level would additionally host a plant room for an external swimming pool. The roof space would be converted to habitable accommodation via the addition of dormer windows and rooflights.

Faye Wright, spoke as the agent, stating the homes owners have lived there since 2008 and were an integral in their local community. The extensions proposed were sensible and better than the permitted development design currently in place.  The previous designs which had been approved looked clumsy and the new proposal was visually better and had less of an impact.

Councillor Jacqui Boulton, spoke on behalf of North Mymms Parish Council, stating that the development was inappropriate as the development was near a site of special scientific interest. The development would result in a loss of openness and would be visibly intrusive on the Green Belt. The site was next to a woodland and quarry. There has been no inclusion of planting to protect the greenbelt and if granted could lead the way for further development on the greenbelt.

Members sought clarification on what would happen to the permitted development rights if planning was granted. Officers stated that the permitted development rights would be relinquished and be void should this proposal be granted. There would also be no new permitted development attached to the proposal if granted. The applicant would have to seek further planning permission should they wish to make any additional extensions to the proposal.

Members considered whether the development would infringe on the greenbelt visually. Officers stated that the permitted development right would have a greater impact visually than the proposal. Members stated that the proposal was for a uniform build rather than an odd shape and therefore the impact on the openness is minimal.

Members expressed concern that whilst the proposal would be less impactful than the permitted development fall-back, granting permission to the proposal could set a precedent in the area for permitted development. Officers stated that permitted development were the fallback position and that each application would be treated on its own merit.

Members asked about the impact on the sites of special scientific interest. Officers stated that no consideration had been given to the sites and Herts Ecology and the Wildlife Trust were not consulted. The legal advisor stated that the statutory consultees would have to raise an issue and there were an array of potential impacts.  However, given the proposal it would seem that the only impact on sites of special scientific interest would be from the construction process, which would exist should the permitted development rights be exercised.

Members asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

Report of the Head of Planning.

Report of the Head of Planning detailing recent appeal decisions for the period 9 October to 25 November 2021.

          RESOLVED:

That appeal decisions during the period 9 October to 25 November be noted. 

Report of the Head of Planning.

Report of the Head of Planning providing the Committee with a summary of planning applications that may be presented to DMC in future.

RESOVLED:

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