Agenda and minutes

To note any substitution of Members made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 19-22.

The following substitutions of Committee Members had been made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 19-22:

Councillor H.Bower for H.Bromley

Councillor L.Chesterman for M.Larkins

Councillor J.Cragg for S.Wrenn

Councillor C.Gillett for S.Markiewicz

Councillor R.Trigg for P.Hebden

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors H.Bromley, P.Hebden, M.Larkins, S.Markiewicz and S.Wrenn.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 April 2018 (previously circulated).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 26 April 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman announced that application number 6/2018/0195/FULL, 94 Harmer, Green Lane, Digswell, Welwyn, AL6 0EP for the installation of 67 x standalone solar PV panels within the grounds of the dwelling had been withdrawn and would now be considered under delegated powers. 

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

Councillors S.Boulton and L.Chesterman declared non-pecuniary interests in items on the agenda as appropriate by virtue of being a Member of Hertfordshire County Council.

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) detailing the erection of two detached properties following demolition of the existing dwelling.

The application site comprised a detached two storey dwelling located toward the northern end of the road with front driveway/garden and rear garden.  The dwelling was finished in brick below a tiled pitched roof with gabled flanks.

Upland Drive was a private access road featuring a linear row of residential properties running parallel to the Great North Road (A1000), which was separated by a landscaped screen.  The site was on the eastern edge of Brookmans Park, which was excluded from the Green Belt, as designated in the Local Plan.

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because Councillor Jonathan Boulton had objected and called-in the application on the grounds of effect on amenity of neighbours and character of the road.

Officers proposed an amendment to the conditions to include that a bat survey be undertaken prior to any development taking place.

Mr Jeremy Deswarte, Agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Mrs Said, on behalf of Mrs J.Parish (Objector), spoke against the application and stated that the proposed development would be detrimental to the neighbouring properties and were out of keeping with the street scene.  The construction traffic would severely damage the already fragile infrastructure as had occurred during previous developments of other plots within the road.

Mr Eric Ewer, as Chairman and on behalf of the Upland Road Committee, spoke in objection to the proposed development and concurred with Mrs J.Parish regarding the anticipated damage to the infrastructure caused by the construction vehicles.  Mr Ewer also referred to the problems of access for residents as already experienced during the construction of the previous developments within the road.

North Mymms Parish Councillor, Jacqueline Boulton, spoke against the application, expressing the view that the proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site which would result in the terracing effect being more marked, the overdevelopment of the plot and would be out of character with the streetscene.

Members raised the following points during the discussion which ensued.

•        A S106 Agreement for the reimbursement of cost from potential damage to the road to be put in place.

•        The developer be conditioned to put right any damage caused to the road from construction traffic.

•        The developers be encouraged to work together with the Road Committee regarding the upkeep of the road throughout the construction period and to undertake any necessary repairs.

•        Support was expressed regarding the Officers report and assessment of the need for the extended family members.

•        The development was considered to be appropriate in this part of the Borough.

•        Officers were satisfied that the parking provision was sufficient and there were no issues regarding visibility of traffic onto the Great North Road.

•        The garden of no.33 was considered to be too short and narrow for a development of this size, a family home.

•        The front garden would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

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

The Chairman announced that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda and would now be considered under Officer delegated powers.

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) detailing the erection of single storey side and rear extension and alterations to openings to facilitate conversion of existing single dwelling into five one bedroom flats.

The application site comprised a semi-detached, five bed single family dwelling with attached garage and associated front driveway and rear garden.  The dwelling was situated at the junction of St Albans Road East and Heyford Way, Hatfield. 

Planning permission was sought for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension and conversion of this property from a five-bed single family dwelling to five one bed flats.  Four off-street parking spaces would be provided within the existing hard-surfaced front driveway facing St Albans Road East.

Hatfield Town Council objected to this application for the following reasons:

“The Committee object to this application due to the fact the Hatfield Article 4 Direction desperately needs reviewing and this has been recognised by the LPA. Until such time that this has been carried out and bearing in mind that the overall concentration of HMOs in Hatfield Town Council's area needs to be reduced, no further HMOs should be permitted within the boundaries of Hatfield Town Council's area hence forth. Whilst this application provides self-contained units, it is still going to have the same effect as an HMO including the parking issues and negative effects on local residents.”

Hatfield Town Councillor J.Broach, spoke in objection to the application for the reasons set out above and in addition commented that provision had not been made in the application for a bicycle store.

It was then proposed by Councillor J.Boulton, seconded by Councillor R.Trigg and

RESOLVED:

(8 for and 5 against)

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of Officers. 

In addition:

The development/works shall not be started and completed other than in accordance with the approved plans and details:

REASON: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.

1.         POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT

The decision has been made taking into account, where practicable and appropriate the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and material planning considerations do not justify a decision contrary to the development plan (see Officer’s report which can be viewed on the Council's website or inspected  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) detailing the raising and realignment of the roof height and installation of two rear rooflights.

The application site comprised a semi-detached dwelling in a large plot in a reasonably prominent location near the junction of Russellcroft Road and Parkway. The dwelling was set back within the plot by around 8m.

The street scene comprised detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings with a variety of architectural features in large plots.  The site was within the Welwyn Garden City Conservation Area.

Planning permission was sought for the raising and realignment of part of the existing first floor roof to match the height of the main roof.  It would involve the raising of the eaves height of part of the dwelling by around 600mmm and would alter the roof form from a side catslide roof to a traditional hipped roof.  The application would also involve the provision of normal height windows in the first floor rear elevation of the dwelling in place of the existing half height windows.

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because it has been called in by Councillor Bromley who had expressed the following view.

“I would like to call this in should officers be looking to approve, as it will be overdevelopment of the site, a dramatic change to the street scene, especially looking from the town and cause harm to the amenity of others, from the overlooking from any further roof windows.”

Mr Ron Millar, (Objector) spoke against the application, the design of which would be detrimental to the appearance of the unique building within the Welwyn Garden City Conservation Area.  The proposed development would also severely impact upon the neighbouring proprieties during the construction phase.

It was then proposed by Councillor A.Chesterman, seconded by Councillor P.Shah and

RESOLVED:

(12 for and 1 against)

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of Officers. 

In addition:

The development/works shall not be started or completed other than in accordance with the approved plans and details:

REASON: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT

The decision has been made taking into account, where practicable and appropriate the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and material planning considerations do not justify a decision contrary to the development plan (see Officer’s report which can be viewed on the Council's website or inspected at these offices).

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) detailing the installation of one non-illuminated and two externally illuminated fascia signs.

The application site was situated on the north east side of the junction of Bessemer Road and Bridge Road in Welwyn Garden City.  The site is located to the east of Welwyn Garden City Town Centre and formed part of the Employment Area.

The site comprised of a mix of commercial units with a range of uses including a builders merchants and tile merchants (sui generis), Classes B1(c), B2 and B8 units with trade counters and ancillary showrooms and Class A1 a bulky goods retail warehouse.

The application sought advertisement consent for one non-illuminated and two externally illuminated fascia signs.

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because Councillor Cowan had submitted an objection and had called-in the application, with the following comment:

“I object to the proposed signs. This block already has an excess of signage, in both size and numeric terms. Much of it is probably unauthorised - can you check, and inform Enforcement accordingly? The proposed sign saying 'Welwyn Garden City' is particularly fatuous and unnecessary. The companies should be made to rationalise and merge their signage, not keep adding to it, presumably on the grounds of precedent.”

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Councillor Malcolm Cowan spoke against the application and reiterated his views expressed in the report.

It was then proposed by Councillor A.Chesterman, seconded by Councillor J.Boulton and

RESOLVED:

(10 for and 3 against)

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report of Officers.

DRAWING NUMBERS

(1)          The development/works shall not be started and completed other than in accordance with the approved plans and details:

REASON: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.

1.   POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT

The decision has been made taking into account, where practicable and appropriate the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and material planning considerations do not justify a decision contrary to the development plan (see Officer’s report which can be viewed on the Council's website or inspected at these offices).

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 11 May 2018 to 11 June 2018.

RESOLVED:

That appeal decisions during this period be noted.

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) provided Members with a summary of planning applications that might be presented to the Committee over the next one or two months.  Members noted that if the call-in or application was withdrawn, the item would not be presented to Committee.

RESOLVED:

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

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 Items 15 and 16 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.

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 (Minute 23 refers) on the grounds that they involve 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.

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

The exempt report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) provided an update on ongoing planning enforcement cases and sought authorisation of the enforcement of the cases.

RESOLVED:

That Members note the contents of the report.