Agenda and minutes

Development Management Committee
Thursday 19th July 2018 7.30 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, The Campus, Welwyn Garden City, Herts, AL8 6AE

Contact: Marie Lowe 

Items
No. Item

24.

SUBSTITUTIONS

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

Minutes:

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

 

Councillor M.Cowan for J.Caliskan

Councillor S.Kasumu for N.Pace

25.

APOLOGIES

Minutes:

Apologies for absence was received from Councillors J.Caliskan and N.Pace.

26.

MINUTES

To confirm as correct record the Minutes of the meetings held on 12 and 21 June 2018 (previously circulated).

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 12 and 21 June 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

27.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

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

Minutes:

Councillor S.Boulton declared non-pecuniary interests in items on the agenda as appropriate by virtue of being a Member of Hertfordshire County Council and in agenda Item 6 - 20 Upland Drive, Brookmans Park, Hatfield, AL9 6PT - 6/2018/0655/FULL, because he had objected to the proposed development and had called-in the application.

28.

20 UPLAND DRIVE, BROOKMANS PARK, HATFIELD, AL9 6PT - 6/2018/0655/FULL - ERECTION OF 2X5-BEDROOM DWELLINGS WITH PRIVATE REAR GARDENS AND FRONT DRIVEWAYS, FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING pdf icon PDF 387 KB

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

Minutes:

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) detailing the erection of 2x5 bedroom dwellings with private rear gardens and front driveways, following demolition of the existing dwelling at 20 Upland Drive, which was a detached bungalow with front driveway/garden and rear garden set within a large plot. 

 

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.

 

Properties along Upland Drive were varied in style and included predominately detached two storey dwellings and a small number of detached bungalows typically set well back from the road in landscaped gardens.  Many properties had been extended and altered from their original form and there were some limited examples of replacement dwellings.  Recently, both 30 and 33 Upland Drive had been re-developed to accommodate two dwellings following demolition of the original dwellings and the subdivision of each plot (ref: 6/2017/1422/FULL and 6/2015/2127/FULL respectively).  The development at 30 was currently under construction whilst the two new dwellings at 33 had been completed. The application was a resubmission following refused application: 6/2017/1617/FULL.

 

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because Councillor Stephen Boulton had objected and called-in the application.

 

“As you know there have been several applications in this road and I am concerned that the character of the road is being changed by these proposals.  The road had been originally developed with fairly large houses or bungalows on wide plots of land with good space between the dwellings.  The ongoing applications to build two houses on plots which contained one house will, if allowed to continue, affect the character of the road and amenity of existing residents.”

 

North Mymms Parish Council had made the following representations against the application:

 

“…In accordance with decision for 20 Upland Drive, we concur that this is a very similar proposal in scale, massing, width, siting and that the design would appear cramped within the site and street scene.  These properties would be highly visible from the A1000.”

 

Officers recommended that, should planning permission be granted, the following Upland Drive Road informative would be included.

 

“The applicant is advised that Upland Drive is a private road, the upkeep of which is the responsibility of the adjoining property owners and members, who currently do this by convening and making appropriate payments to a road committee to cover costs of maintenance and drainage.  The applicant is strongly advised to contact the Upland Drive Road Committee at the earliest opportunity to discuss how the use and maintenance of the road may be managed/contributed to during and post construction of the development. Contact details for the road committee may be obtained from the Council”.

 

Mr Eric Ewer, as Chairman and on behalf of the Upland Road Committee, spoke in objection to the proposed application. Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

29.

11 ELM DRIVE, HATFIELD, AL10 8NR - 6/2018/1061/HOUSE - ERECTION OF FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION ABOVE EXISTING GROUND FLOOR EXTENSION pdf icon PDF 412 KB

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

Minutes:

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the erection of first floor extension above existing ground floor extension.

 

The site was located on the east side of Elm Drive and consisted of a two storey detached dwelling.  The area was residential in character featuring properties of similar style and design.  The dwelling was sited on the inside of a bend in Elm Drive, exposing the north west flank wall to public vantage.  Where the host dwelling and neighbouring property, Number 9 Elm Drive to the south east faced in the same north east direction, Number 13 Elm Drive, by virtue of the 90 degree bend in Elm Drive, faced north west.

 

Members noted that the application differed from that refused within application 6/2017/1133/HOUSE in the following ways;

 

      The proposed extension would not result in the angle of the rear slope of the main roof being substantially altered as previously proposed

 

      The proposed roof would be set down from the existing ridgeline of the main roof of the dwelling by approximately 0.7m

 

      The new roof would consist of two pitched roofs, which would be hipped back towards the main roof, with a central valley between the two roofs

 

      In addition, the application did not seek permission for the front extension or single storey rear extension which have been considered acceptable under 6/2017/2110/HOUSE and 6/2017/2111/LAWP.  The extensions approved by these applications were at an advance stage of construction

 

Officers stated that the report contained an error, in paragraph 8, application number 6/2017/2110/HOUSE was quoted rather than 6/2017/1133/HOUSE. 6/2017/2110/HOUSE was the single storey front extension which had been approved and was currently under construction.  However, the description in the text referred to an earlier application for a single storey front extension and 2-storey rear extension which had been refused, i.e. 6/2017/1133/HOUSE.

 

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because Councillor Thorpe had objected and called-in the application stating the following reasons.

 

“I believe this development would deliver an overbearing loss of light on neighbouring properties and should not be permitted. I have been contacted by local residents with concerns over this, and considering similar previous applications have been refused, if this intended to be approved it should be determined by the DMC committee.”

 

Hatfield Town Councillor James Broach spoke against the application reiterating Hatfield Town Council’s objections:

 

“Members wished to support the neighbour’s objection due to a concern at the impact on number 9 Elm Drive, and a possible lack of light.  Also concern on the impact on the surrounding area.”

 

During the debate which ensued, Members expressed concerns regarding the cumulative nature of the proposed development and that the impact on the neighbouring properties would be overdominant and unacceptable.

Following the discussion, it was then moved by Councillor J.Boulton, seconded by Councillor S.Markiewicz that the Officer recommendation be accepted with 6 voting for and 7 against the proposed development. 

 

The Committee were minded to refuse the application, against the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

30.

MEADOW FARM, NORTHAW ROAD WEST, NORTHAW ROAD, POTTERS BAR, EN6 4QX - 6/2018/0679/VAR - VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 AND 3 ON PLANNING PERMISSION E6/1973/1887/, DATED 16/08/1973 pdf icon PDF 209 KB

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

Minutes:

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the variation of condition 2 and 3 on planning permission E6/1973/1887/, dated 16/08/1973.

 

The application site was situated on the south side of Northaw Road West and consisted of a detached two storey dwelling.  Members noted that none of the land which surrounded the dwelling had been included within the application site.  The property was set back from the road by approximately 40m and accessed by a driveway to the north west of the property. 

 

Members also noted that in order for the applicant to be able to establish whether they were able to use the land that surrounded the dwelling for a residential purpose they would need to submit either a full planning application for the change of use of this land or a certificate of lawfulness, if sufficient evidence existed, to prove that the residential use of this land had occurred for more than 10 years.

 

The proposal related to the variation of Conditions 2 and 3 from planning permission E6/1973/1887 to allow the property to be occupied by people who were not involved in agriculture. 

 

Condition 2 stated:

 

The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to persons wholly or principally employed or last employed locally in agriculture as defined in Section 2909(i) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, or in foresting, and the dependants of such persons residing with them (including a widow or widower of such a person).

 

Condition 3 stated:

 

“The dwelling shall not be occupied except by a person who is primarily engaged in carrying out or directing agricultural operations on a holding which includes not less than 85 acres of the agricultural land comprised in the holding which forms the subject of this application and consisting of fields Ordinance Survey numbers, 7725, 9814, 6700, 0005, 0700, 2265, 4263, on the Ordinance 1:1250 scale sheets numbers TL 2901 and TL 2902, 1970 edition.”

 

The proposal did not relate to any material change of use of any of the land which surrounded the dwelling or to any operational development.

 

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council had objected with the following: 

 

“This parish is unusual in that we are unaware of any social housing in Cuffley.  The existing social housing in Northaw has the equivalent access to public transport as this property.  Due to the limited amount of social housing in the parish, we recommend that this property should be first considered for social housing to assist lower income households.”

 

It was then proposed by Councillor S.Elam, seconded by Councillor T.Lyons and

 

RESOLVED:

(unanimous)

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report of Officers and the inclusion of all other conditions of the original planning permission.

 

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

 

Plan Number

Revision Number  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

31.

APPEAL DECISIONS pdf icon PDF 83 KB

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

Minutes:

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) detailing recent appeal decisions for the period 11 June 2018 to 5 July 2018.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That appeal decisions during this period be noted.

32.

PLANNING UPDATE - FUTURE PLANNING APPLICATIONS pdf icon PDF 103 KB

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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.

33.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE REPORT - APRIL - JUNE 2018 pdf icon PDF 241 KB

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

Minutes:

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) informed the Committee of the performance of the Development Management Service over the second quarter of 2017/18.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)       That the report on the performance of the Development Management Services over the second quarter 2017/18 be noted.

 

(2)       That Officers were praised for the high level of performance over the previous quarter be noted.

34.

SECTION 106 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS REPORT pdf icon PDF 1 MB

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the Section 106 planning obligations report.

 

Planning obligations were an effective tool to secure the necessary infrastructure and services required as a result of development.  They also ensured that the negative impacts of a development could be adequately mitigated.  Members noted that they could not be used to mitigate the impact of any shortfall in existing infrastructure.

 

Members also noted that the purpose of planning obligations was to make development acceptable that would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms.  The National Panning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out in paragraph 204 that planning obligations could 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 to the development.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)       That the annual report on how the Council collects and spends s106 monies and the details of the monies still to be spent be noted.

 

(2)       That s106 contributions could be sought from future developments above 10 residential units be noted. 

 

(3)       That Members identify potentially related infrastructure requirements.

 

(4)       That contributions could also be sought from developments including employment or retail uses.

 

(5)       That Members comment in the future on how they would like the Council to secure and spend Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions.

 

(6)       That the report be circulated to all members of the Council.