Agenda and minutes

Chris Carter, Assistant Director, Planning, provided the Committee with the below update:

“On Friday, the 1st of December, the Council was notified that an application has been made to the High Court for a statutory review under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in respect of the adoption of the Local Plan. this is essentially an application for a judicial review of the Council's decision to adopt the Plan, and officers are in the process of securing legal advice in respect of the challenge made and the Council will respond to this formally in due course.

In terms of the status of the newly adopted plan, it remains the case that this is the adopted Plan at this Council, and the policies contained in the Plan should be given due weight accordingly. It is the advice of officers that the policies of the plan also remain in broad accordance with those in the National Planning Policy Framework. The Local Plan would only cease to have weight in full or in part if a successful challenge was made through the courts.”

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

Councillor Hellyer substituted for Councillor Lass.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Lass.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2023 (previously circulated).

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2023 were agreed as a correct record of the meeting.

There were no urgent items of business, or items withdrawn from the agenda.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

Councillor Broach declared an interest in agenda item 7 as the Councillor that called in the application, and noted he would leave the Chamber during the discussions and vote.

Councillor Tunstall declared an interest as a Town Councillor involved in the review of agenda item 7, and noted he would leave the Chamber during the discussions and vote.

Councillor Watson declared an interest as Town Councillor involved in previous discussions on agenda items 6 and 7, and noted she would leave the Chamber during the discussions and vote.

Councillor Thomson declared an interest as a County Councillor and noted she had a family member who worked for the Environment Agency, but not the department referenced in the report.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

Chris Carter, Assistant Director, Planning made the below announcement:

“It has come to the attention of officers that the access plan which is recommended for approval with the application has not been formally submitted to the Council as Local Planning Authority, and so has therefore not been subject to consultation other than with Hertfordshire Highways who have given their support to the proposal. The reason that this is important is because Hatfield Town Council has objected on the basis of the access arrangement and has not had the opportunity to formally comment on the proposed revised arrangement.

In the circumstances, it is recommended by officers that the item is deferred to the next meeting of the Development Management Committee to allow an opportunity for comments to be made.”

Councillor Hellyer proposed, and Councillor Broach seconded, that the item be deferred. 

RESOLVED

(unanimous)

The Committee agreed to defer the item to a future meeting of the Committee.

The Committee received the report of the Assistant Director, Planning, and a presentation. The application was presented to the Development Management Committee because Councillor Broach had called-in the application.  The reasons for the call-in were set out in the report.

Matthew Green, Agent, spoke regarding the application:

“My name is Matthew Green and I am the Land Director at Griggs Homes, and I'm speaking tonight to support the planning application.

I would like to highlight the key attributes of the proposed scheme and the positive contribution that it will make to this vacant brownfield site. This application is the culmination of a collaborative, pre ap and application process with your officers. The proposal seeks the construction of four sensitively designed and energy efficient infill dwellings on an area of vacant hardstanding, formerly used for car parking by the now closed adjoining public house.

The scheme is an effective reuse of empty brownfield land at a time when the green belt is coming under increased pressure for housing delivery. The proposed dwellings will provide new high quality family housing, for which there is an acute shortage in the Borough. The proposal is well related to the adjoining buildings and complements the area and is respectful to the history of the site, indeed, the application site previously contained residential dwellings and this scheme will re-establish its historic character.

Following the approval of the application, the parking area will be relocated to the western side of the public house in a visually less dominant area of the site, ensuring a sufficient provision for future commercial use. During the application process we have reduced the sizes of the house types and improved accessibility to all of the proposed dwellings.

There are no objections from any statutory consultees, such as Environmental Health Highways, Hertfordshire Ecology, and the LLFA.

All units meet the minimum space and energy efficiency standards and are adaptable in line with the lifetime homes standard; each house will benefit from an individual air source heat pump, electric vehicle charging points and the use of energy efficient construction materials.

The proposals meet the appropriate amenity and design standards, provide improved landscaping and a significant reduction in hardstanding.  The scheme is fully policy compliant it accords with the MPFF, the Welwyn Hatfield Development Plan and will achieve overwhelming benefits.

As a result, I therefore request that you support your officers objective and comprehensive assessment of the scheme and grant planning permission in accordance with the recommendation for approval.”

Cameron Baxter spoke against the application:

“Good evening, I would like to object to the application. HSC Highways Agency originally recommended refusal, one of the reasons being, and I quote “for pedestrian safety reasons at all new vehicle accesses, it is necessary to maintain, within the site, pedestrian visibility splays measuring 2 x 2 metres with no obstruction to visibility between 0.6 and 2 metres above the carriageway on both sides of the footway within which unobstructed visibility is available for drivers to see and be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Committee received the report of the Assistant Director, Planning, and a presentation. The application was presented to the Development Management Committee because Northaw & Cuffley Parish Council had submitted a Major Objection. The officer clarified that there were drafting errors in the report. It was note that Section 5 of the report omitted the Northaw & Cuffley Neighbourhood Plan, referred to the Local Plan as “draft”.

Northaw & Cuffley Parish Council submitted the below statement which was circulated to members of the Committee:

“The fact that no one is present from the Parish Council to read this statement tonight should not be perceived as an indication that we are indifferent to this application. We are not. But we are unable to get anyone willing to attend any future DMC meetings just so they can be, at best ignored or at worse treated as a nuisance.

The Northaw & Cuffley Neighbourhood Plan was developed to give clarity and precision to some micro level planning decisions that were historically left to the judgement of the case officer. Over the years the individual judgments of various officers have led to a hotch potch of designs that this case officer refers to in their report. And yet the report recommends a continuation of this approach.

So by having a policy that clearly defines roof height in comparison to neighbouring properties is neither new or controversial. On this occasion the case officer has ignored the Neighbourhood Plan polices and reverted to a personal judgement. Indeed, Section 5 lists all the Planning Policy documents that relate to this application and omits any reference to the Neighbourhood Plan. This is not a discretionary document that Officers can choose to conform to or not. When it was approved by referendum it became a legal, statutory document – ignoring it is negligent and probably unlawful.

What is the point of having a Neighbourhood Plan when it is going to be ignored for no justifiable reason?

If this committee is minded to approve this application in its current form, it sends a very clear message to anyone considering a Neighbourhood Plan – that "we will always take the opinion of the case officer over any statutory plan" and adds further evidence that the current approach to planning in WHBC is not fit for purpose.

The recommendation that this application be approved subject to further proposals for the roof design, to be approved exclusively by the case officer, is a flagrant breech of the democratic process. Why split an application in to 2 parts – one part approved by this committee and the other part approved by the case officer? Why not ask the applicant to produce one final set of plans that everyone can comment.

Again, moving toward this approach to planning applications, questions the relevance and credibility of this committee.

We would like to explore the opportunity to find a solution can be found that meets the policies in the Neighbourhood Plan but this will mean WHBC Planning opening up a dialogue  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Director, Planning, on Section 106 Planning Obligations which is brought annually to Committee.

Members raised the following comments:

·        A large amount of money was available in Peartree ward. Officers clarified that these were from the planning permissions from the Wheat Quarter. These may be revisited as a new owner for part of the Wheat Quarter comes forward

·        ACTION: Officers would find out the expiry dates for Section 106 money for Handside ward and would circulate this to the Councillor directly.

·        Officers monitor and ensure the Section 106 money is spent within deadlines. 

·        It would be useful for details of the expiry dates of Section 106 money is included in future reports.

·        ACTION: Officers would seek to confirm what “childcare” money from the report had been returned to developers.

·        Concerns were raised that Section 106 money was not being used. Council Services had strategies to use the Section 106 money. Money should be spent within 10 years and approaches can be made to developers to extend the timeframe to spend the money, but this is subject to agreement from all parties.

RESOLVED

The Committee noted the Section 106 Planning Obligations report 2022/23.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Director, Planning, on the performance of the Development Management Service from July to September 2023.

The following points were raised:                                   

·        There were a number of outstanding planning enforcement cases and the Principal Planning Officer post had been recruited to.

·        Performance on majors is sensitive to just one or two decisions being made out of time, due to the small number of major applications that the Council deals with each quarter. Extensions of time are used by planning authorities to secure additional time to determine applications.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the report.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Director, Planning, setting out the Appeal Decisions for the period 1 September 2023 to 23 November 2023.

RESOLVED

The Committee noted the report.

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Director, Planning, on future planning applications.

It was agreed details of when the application was first called in to DMC would be included in future reports.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the report.

The Committee is asked to resolve:

That under Section 100(A)(2) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be now excluded from the meeting for Item 15 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of confidential or exempt information as defined in Section 100(A)(3) and Paragraphs 2 (Information likely to reveal the identity of an individual), and 6 (Statutory notice or order)  of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act (as amended).

In resolving to exclude the public in respect of the exempt information, it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

The Committee resolved:

That under Section 100(A)(2) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be now excluded from the meeting for Item 15 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of confidential or exempt information as defined in Section 100(A)(3) and Paragraph 6 (Statutory notice or order) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act (as amended).

In resolving to exclude the public in respect of the exempt information, it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

To receive a report of the Assistant Director of Planning on 111 The Ryde.

The Committee discussed this item under Part 2.

RESOLVED:

The Committee agreed no further formal planning enforcement action is taken at the present time and should circumstances at the Property change in a material way then this should be revisited.