Agenda and minutes

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

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

Councillor L.Chesterman for Councillor P.Shah.

Councillor C.Juggins for Councillor S.Wrenn.

Councillor P.Zukowskyj for Councillor F.Marsh.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors F.Marsh, P.Shah and S.Wrenn.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2019 (previously circulated).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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, L.Chesterman and P.Zukowskyj declared non-pecuniary interests in items on the Agenda as appropriate by virtue of being Members of Hertfordshire County Council.

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the proposed erection of two dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow.

The application site was located on the western side of Broom Hill, on the eastern edge of the settlement of Welwyn.  The surrounding area comprises predominantly of residential dwellings with associated car parking. 

The site was a rectangular plot with a single storey dwelling with an integral garage, set back from the street scene.  To the front of the site there was soft landscaping featuring three mature trees with some hard standing present providing access to the dwelling from Broom Hill as well as additional onsite car parking.   To the rear of the site was a garden which included a greenhouse and beyond that there was a railway track.  The boundary treatments featured mature landscaping in front of a close bordered fence.

The application was presented to the Committee because Welwyn Parish Council had responded with a major objection:-

“Due to the height and bulk Welwyn Parish Council consider this to be over-development of the site and we are concerned at the overall effect this will have on the street scene and neighbouring properties.”

M.Osborne, applicant spoke for the application saying that further to the previous application and discussion with Planning Officers adjustments had been made to the height and bulk so this proposal was more in keeping with the area and was not now over-development of the site. A contribution would be made to the road surface.

C.Lewis spoke as an objector, but said that now adjustments had been made, particularly to the height of the ridge line, the present application was acceptable, provided that it was adhered to.

Welwyn Parish Councillor C.Hinkin spoke against the application presenting the Parish Council’s objection that it was overdevelopment of the site due to its height and bulk and there was concern at the effect on the streetscence and neighbouring properties.

A late representation had been received from Hertfordshire County Council as Highway Authority confirming that there was no objection.

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors J.Broach and S.Kasumu and

RESOLVED:

(unanimous)

That the application be PERMITTED subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the erection of the single storey outbuilding to function as a studio and treatment room.

No. 2 Mardleybury Court was a two storey terrace house set in a staggered row of matching properties. Numbers 1, 2 and 3 and 8 and 9 were two storey houses while Numbers 4 to 7 were on higher land and were single storey houses. All the houses were finished in the same materials.

Although the properties had vehicle access and parking to the rear, the north-west elevation facing onto Mayshades Close represented the principal front elevation of the property. The front door was accessed by foot along a pedestrian path that ran in front of the neighbouring houses in the row and was accessed from the main road (B197 - London Road) to the west.

The application site was a garden area on a corner plot between two perpendicular rows of garages. The garage to the west of the application site and garden area were within the ownership of the property. The garage provided pedestrian access to the application site which measured approximately 30 square metres in area and was predominately uneven soil bounded by the existing garages on the west and southern boundaries. The other boundaries were enclosed by approximately 1.8 metre high wooden fencing and trellis and in many places was dilapidated. A large Scots Pine was located on the north eastern corner of the application site which was not covered by a Tree Preservation Order and was within the ownership of 1 Mayshades Close garden which formed the northern boundary. 

This application was presented to the Committee because Borough Ward Councillor J.Cragg has called it in on the grounds of:-

“1) Lack of car parking.

2) Upsetting neighbours’ amenity value as they have a right to peaceful enjoyment of their property. Hampered if cars park inconsiderately.”

Woolmer Green Parish Council had objected and Parish Councillor A.Gribble presented the objection on the grounds of the arrangements for parking and access and over-development of the site as the proposed studio/ treatment room filled the whole of the garden area and called for the application to be deferred until these issues could be resolved.

Borough Ward Councillor J.Cragg spoke against the application supporting the Parish Council’s objection saying that the parking arrangements needed to be looked at.

Late representations had been received from Hertfordshire County Council as Highways authority confirming that there was no objection.

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council Environmental Health Service had no objection in respect of traffic noise levels. A local resident had objected on the grounds of increased parking congestion.

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors S.Boulton and A.Chesterman and

RESOLVED:

(unanimous)

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the report and an additional condition as follows:-

CONDITION:  The studio/treatment room hereby permitted shall be used for the specified business purposes only by persons resident/in occupation of the adjoining  ...  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 erection of a single storey side extension, loft conversion, alterations to the roof including an increase to its height, the addition of gable ends, the installation of a rear dormer window, alterations to fenestration and the replacement of the existing glazed lobby with a new open sided porch (part retrospective).

The application site was located on the north side of Garden Road with the dwelling set back from the front boundary by around eight metres, a greater degree of set- back than the dwellings at numbers 55 and 57 Garden Road to the west. Consequently the rear elevation of the dwelling extended to around six metres to the rear of the neighbouring dwelling at number 57 while it was around four metres from the east side boundary with numbers 44 and 46 New Road. 

The neighbouring and surrounding properties comprised detached and semi- detached dwellings in a varied street scene.

This application was presented to the Committee as Woolmer Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the basis that “the extension is too large” and “out of scale with the bungalow”.

S.Hoskin, agent spoke for the application saying that the applicants had been advised by their loft conversion company that planning permission was not needed for that work. The current proposal was intended to rectify this following discussions with Planning Officers to be more in keeping with other properties and meet neighbours’ concerns.

J.Davis spoke against the application on behalf of neighbours on the grounds that the present extension bore no resemblance to the plans and was not acceptable because of the impact on them. The height and dept. was overbearing and dominant.

Borough Ward Councillor J.Cragg spoke against the application on the grounds of the effect on the amenity value for neighbours which should be taken into account.

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors P.Hebden and S.Elam and

RESOLVED:

(11 voting for and 2 against)

That, notwithstanding the Officer recommendation for approval, planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

REASON:  The extension is of a poor design that fails to reflect and harmonise with neighbouring homes in the vicinity of the site particularly by reason of the proposed large box dormer on the rear elevation of the dwelling which at nearly the full width of the roof would appear disproportionately large, bulky and prominent when viewed from neighbouring homes and wider vantage points.  The proposed extensions would cause an unneighbourly and harmful impact upon the amenities of adjoining residents.  The extension therefore fails to achieve a high standard of design as required by Policies D1 and D2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Local Plan 2005 and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework 2005.

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 7 July to 31 July 2019.

RESOLVED:

That appeal decisions during the period 7 July to 31 July 2019 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 might be presented 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 the Committee.

RESOLVED:

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) explaining that 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, for example, by increasing/improving public transport provision, increasing school capacity, enhancing open spaces, requiring that a given portion of housing was affordable, etc.  It was important to note that they could not be used to mitigate the impact of any shortfall in existing infrastructure.

The purpose of planning obligations was to make development acceptable that would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms.  The National Panning Policy Framework set out that planning obligations could only be sought where they met 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.

Members asked that the Borough Ward boundaries in the information presented be updated. A briefing note would be provided for Members on the arrangements for the collection and spend of s106 monies on projects.

RESOLVED:

(1)     That the annual report which related to a) how the Borough Council collected and spent s106 monies and b) details of monies still to be spent be noted.

(2)     That Ward Members be advised that s106 contributions could be sought from future developments above ten residential units and consider this in identifying potentially related infrastructure requirements, noting than contributions could also be sought from developments including employment or retail uses.

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

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 14 and 15 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.

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 14 (Minute 40 refers) on the grounds that it involved 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 Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) provided an update on ongoing planning enforcement cases.

RESOLVED:

That the update on planning enforcement be noted.