Agenda and minutes

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

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

Councillor S.Kasumu for Councillor S.Markiewicz.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor S.Markiewicz.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2018 (previously circulated).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the removal of the words ‘contrary to road safety’.

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

Councillor S.Boulton declared a non-pecuniary interest 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) setting out the erection of nine two bed houses and a community hall with associated parking and landscaping, following the demolition of the existing church and dwelling.

The application site extended to 2,400 sqm. in size and comprised two properties – the Diocesan Education Centre, accessed from Hall Grove, and a two storey dwelling to the rear, accessed from Cole Green Lane.  The two properties were separated by a 1.8m high fence.  The Education Centre was sited adjacent to the boundary with 9 Hall Grove.  Much of its curtilage was laid to hardstanding with a small patch of grass at the rear.  The centre was boarded up and was in a very poor state of repair.  The site was poorly maintained and was an unattractive element of the street scene.

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because it had been called-in by Councillor Weston who had made the following statement –

“I am extremely concerned about traffic congestion related to this site as Hall Grove gets congested already outside the shops, doctor's surgery and further down near the community centre and hospice. More cars coming out from and going into this site will only add to the mayhem.

There are not enough parking spaces on the site with only seven for the community hall and none of these is a disabled bay. There is only one space provided for five of the houses so there is bound to be over-spill into Hall Grove itself, making parking matters there worse.

I am concerned that as many new homes built in our area as possible are affordable, for local people. I would like to call this application in.”

Reverend Lauckner, (Applicant) spoke in favour of the application.

Mrs Duglan, (Objector) spoke against the application, highlighting a number of concerns, which included a significant loss of privacy of the neighbouring properties and increased traffic congestion.  The development would be intrusive and result in a loss of enjoyment of the neighbouring property’s garden space with noise, pollution and nuisance arising.  The proposed landscaping indicated the removal of established shrubs and trees which had implications for privacy and outlook. 

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Councillor J.Weston spoke against the proposed development, reiterating the reasons why she had called in the application.

Members acknowledged that, whilst the Lead Local Flood Authority had initially been consulted on the application, although it had subsequently been realised that this was unnecessary.  This was because the application had not been considered to be a major development due to the proposed number of units and overall floor space.  However, there remained significant concerns that the development would impact on the immediate vicinity and neighbouring properties due to the increased surface water.

Members, referring to the Officer’s report, expressed the view that it would be appropriate to require the applicant to provide details of a drainage scheme for the site to be submitted to and agreed in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the variation of Condition 10 (tenancy restriction) on planning permission N6/1994/0338/FP.

The application site was located at the end of a cul-de-sac, Stanborough Close, which was located off Stanborough Road towards the south west of Welwyn Garden City.  The immediate locality consisted of mixed land use including residential, retail and leisure uses. 

Planning permission for the demolition of existing garages, and erection of 12 flats in two blocks, and 11 elderly persons bungalows, car parking, landscaping, and alterations to highway was granted planning permission on 29 September 1994 (ref: N6/1994/0338/FP).  Condition 10 of that permission stated:

“The 11 no. elderly person bungalows forming part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied by at least one person who is over the statutory age of retirement (including a widow or widower of such a person), at all times in the future.

REASON: Because the development has been designed to meet the needs of the elderly with a car parking provision and garden amenity areas which reflect the needs of the elderly, and which would not be appropriate if the bungalows were occupied by families or without any occupancy restrictions’.

The application considered by the Committee sought to vary the wording of Condition 10 to:

“The 11 No. elderly person bungalows forming part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied by at least one person who is over the age of 55 years old and/or is disabled”.

All other aspects of the proposal were to remain the same as previously permitted, it was only the proposed amendment to this condition that was being assessed under this application.

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because Councillor Bromley had called-in the application and had stated.

‘This would be a fundamental change to the use of these dwellings which needs to be considered by the DMC, in order that all the implications of any decision, may be fully discussed and understood by all’.

Mrs King (Objector) spoke against the application for the following reasons.  

The bungalows had been purpose built to accommodate older people.  The change in the condition would have a significant impact on the amenity value of the existing residents.  The elderly would be fearful of venturing out into the Close due to the toys and other obstacles left lying around. 

Officers advised that, notwithstanding the proposed variation to the wording that had been put forward by the applicant, it was considered that this wording would not meet the tests of a planning condition. As a result, Officers recommended that the condition in fact be removed entirely, resulting in an unrestricted occupancy of the dwellings.

Members expressed the following views:

•        The retrospective change to the condition was unfair on the existing residents. 

•        The change in the condition would impair the quality of life for those residents who had moved in prior to the Housing Association allocating properties to families or tenants outside the original condition.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) for the conversion of garage to habitable room with installation of window to rear elevation.

Number 6 Errington Close was a four bed, two storey flat occupied by a single family.  Its entrance and integral garage was at ground floor with habitable accommodation above.  The first floor accommodation extended over two adjoining garages (not within the applicant’s ownership) and access leading to a shared parking court.

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because Hatfield Town Council had made a major objection.

“Members object to the loss of a parking space in this part of Hatfield where parking is at a premium. Further 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, permitting this garage to be converted will further exacerbate the increase in student/HMO accommodation in Hatfield.”

It was then proposed by Councillor P.Hebden, seconded by Councillor T.Lyons and

RESOLVED:

(unanimous)

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

(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.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT

The decision has been made taking into account, where practicable and appropriate the requirements of paragraphs 38 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 30 August to 30 September 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.