Agenda and minutes

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 31 January 2019 (previously circulated).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 31 January 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.

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 an outline application for a residential-led development of up to 650 residential units, a two-form entry primary school, provision of six gypsy and traveller pitches, a new local centre (comprising retail and community uses), new vehicular access from Herns Lane, car parking, associated infrastructure and landscaping works with all matters except access reserved.

The site was formerly used as an aerodrome.  However, the airfield closed in September 2014 and the majority of the ancillary buildings have since been demolished.

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because this was a major application; it was a departure from the Local Plan; and was accompanied by an Environmental Statement.  The Committee had the proper authority conferred on it under the Council’s Constitution for making decisions of this nature subject to any statutory notification or Secretary of State call-in.  In this case the Council must notify the Secretary of State of its decision in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011.

Mr S.Slatford (agent) spoke in favour of the application.

Mrs J.Quinton, an objector, spoke against the application which she considered to be premature ahead of the publication of the Local Plan.  The lack of an airfield at the location and the density of the housing on the majority of the site were substantial reasons why the development should not be approved.

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Councillor T.Mitchinson, spoke in support of the application and stated he welcomed the development of the site which would contribute to the Council’s five year housing supply.

Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor H.Bromley, seconded by Councillor T.Lyons and

RESOLVED:

(12 voting for, 1 against)

That outline planning permission be approved subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement securing planning obligations set out under paragraph 10.167 of the report and the agreement of any necessary extensions to the statutory determination period to complete this agreement; and:

a)    the following conditions; and

b)    notification of this decision to the Secretary of State in relation to the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 and authorisation to determine the application in advance of the adopted Local Plan.

Approved Drawings

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

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the demolition of buildings on the campus of the Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield.

The Hawkshead Campus comprised a complex of buildings which had been developed in successive stages over the years.  The masterplan recognised the key roles attributed to each part of the site (social, learning and clinical) setting out a coherent spatial strategy over the coming years.  The existing central core of buildings comprising the main clinical block was made up of poor quality 1950s buildings that were no longer fit for purpose and did not lend themselves to the effective and efficient use of the site.

The removal of the clinical space and external areas would be occupied by three storey structures of 6,425 sq.m.

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because it had been advertised as a departure from the provisions of the development plan.  The site represented a major development within the green belt where inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances.  There were specific policies that applied to this site as a major developed site within the green belt and the site had recently been the subject of an approved masterplan.  A recommendation of approval would moreover trigger a referral to the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.

Professor S.Reid, Principal, Royal Veterinary College (applicant) spoke in support of the application.

At the Chairman’s discretion, Ward Councillor P.Zukowskyj, spoke to the application, raising concerns regarding accessibility to the site by bicycle and was of the view that a condition be included for a cycle lane.

Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor S.Markiewicz, seconded by Councillor S.Kasumu and

RESOLVED:

(unanimous)

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions contained in the report of Officers and to the additional conditions set out below:-

1.    The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved surface water drainage assessment carried out by Conisbee, drawing number 170344-X-00-DR-C-1000, revision P4 and drawing number 170344-X-00-DR-C-1002, revision P1, dated February 2019 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

1.    Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the critical storm events so that it will not exceed the surface water run-off rate of 14.9 l/s during the 1 in 100 year event plus 40% of climate change event.

2.    Providing storage to ensure no increase in surface water run-off volumes for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year plus climate change event providing a minimum of 60 m3 (or such storage volume agreed with the LLFA) of storage volume in permeable paving and a minimum of 290 m3 (or such storage volume agreed with the LLFA) of storage volume in underground storage tank.

3.    Discharge of surface water from the private drain into the existing ordinary watercourse crossing the development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the change of use of the existing Grade II listed building from Office (B1) to 4 x residential flats (C3) with associated internal and external alterations.

The application site was located to the south east of Salisbury Square and fronts onto Park Street at its junction with Broadway and Fore Street.  The site lies within the Old Hatfield Conservation Area and also within an Area of Archaeological significance as outlined in the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005.  The application building was Grade II Listed and the list description of the building is as follows:

“Houses and shop. C17 timber frame. Long range with cross wing on S. Roughcast. Plain and machine tile roof. 2 storeys. 2 and 5 windows, left hand end slightly projecting with hipped roof. Ground floor shop with 2 wooden Tuscan columns at door on angle. Right hand part has 2 blank 1st floor windows and raised wall surface below roughcast. Half-glazed door on left with early C19 cut bracketed hood. Tall mid C17 red brick chimney stack towards right with 6 square joined shafts. Late C19 flush sash windows to whole range. Moulded wood cornice.”

The building maintained an element with a shop appearance, however, the existing lawful use of the building was as (B1) offices.  The building had no external space, apart from a small courtyard area to the south west corner which was enclosed on all sides by walls.

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because Councillor Hebden has called it in.

Councillor Hebden’s reason for call-in stated:

“I would like to call in this application as I believe that this is of great local and public interest that requires open discussion to ensure the correct decision is made. This building has been subject to unsuccessful planning applications and remained unused for some years; good use of this property would certainly enhance the local area. Having reviewed the application I believe that clarity is required, prior to any decision being made, regarding – the viability of the project, internal works, disruption caused by building works and parking availability.”

Dr J.Fisher, Chairman, Old Hatfield Residents Association spoke as an objector to the application raising concerns regarding the loss of office space; the impact on the vitality of the area; the lack of local consultation and a condition for the provision of a clear construction plan.

Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor T.Lyons, seconded by Councillor P.Shah and

RESOLVED:

(12 voting for and 1 abstention)

That planning permission be granted subject to conditions and the conclusions of the consultation period expiring on the 28 February 2019.

DRAWING NUMBERS

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

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the conversion of existing six bedroom dwelling at 11 Holly Close into two self-contained two bedroom flats.

The application site was situated on the western side of Holly Close and accommodates a mid-terrace dwelling with front and rear gardens.  The surrounding area and street scene were residential in character and contained dwellings similar in respect of both size and appearance.  The property was one of a group of dwellings which formed part of an originally planned residential area of Hatfield Town dating from the 1950’s.

A small one bedroom dwelling (11a Holly Close) which adjoined the north side of the application property had been erected following the granting of planning permission in 2004 under reference S6/2004/0330/FP.  The same application also included permission for a part two storey, part single storey rear extension to the application property to form a five bedroom dwelling.  Numbers 11 and 11a share a vehicular access and a block paved area to the front of the property which provided off street parking for up to five cars.

The application had been presented to Development Management Committee because Councillor James Broach had called-in the application and Hatfield Town Council had responded with a major objection.

Councillor J.Broach’s reason for call-in states:

‘As the applicant's letter states that this application is identical to the one that was refused recently, my call in will be very similar to the last one: I wish to call this application in for consideration at DMC. This application has an unusually long planning history - the applicant has been told numerous times that his house should be returned to C3 use. By converting it into 2x2 bed flats, the proposal could potentially house up to eight occupants - which is completely out of keeping with the local area, both in terms of numbers, and the fact this this site is surrounded by houses, not by flats. Looking at the reason for the refusal of the last application which was as follows: The proposed subdivision of the family dwelling into flats would result in harm to the character of the area by virtue of the change in intensity of use of this narrow cul-de-sac as well as detrimentally impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies D1 and D2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005. Given that no material changes have been made to this proposal, I feel that it is still contrary to sections D1 & 2 of our district plan. From the plans, it is not clear what outdoor amenity space has been afforded to residents of the first floor flat. Item 127f of the NPPF states that a high standard of amenity must be provided to users, and if the applicant has failed to provide outdoor green space to the first floor occupants, then this application should be refused. I have concerns about the potential welfare of this many residents being crammed into a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the erection of an ancillary outbuilding.

The application site was situated to the north west of the Borough, in the countryside outside of any specific settlement and within the Metropolitan Green Belt.  Within the planning statement submitted it stated the application site fell within the Conservation Area, however this was not so.

The site comprised a two storey detached dwelling, which was situated centrally on the triangular shaped plot, approximately 0.4596 ha.  To the east of the dwelling was a detached triple garage and to the north was a separate dwelling, which had separate vehicular access and fell within the ownership of the applicants.

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because Councillor Kingsbury had called-in the application:

“I would like to call in this application if the officer is minded to refuse it, on the basis that the development is replacing sheds that were in place previously and this needs to be considered fully. The impact from the position when the sheds were in place is therefore less, as is the effective increase in floor area of buildings on the site. The design appears good quality and any impact on the openness of the green belt has been considered and minimised.”

Mr F.Caldwell, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Borough Councillor T.Kingsbury, spoke as Ward Member in support of the proposed development, raising concerns regarding the planning issues such as the lack of visual impact, the replacement for a recently demolished building and special circumstances that would make the family’s life so much easier.

Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor H.Bromley, seconded by Councillor P.Shah and

RESOLVED:

(9 voting for and 4 against)

That planning permission be refused for the reason set out in the report of Officers.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT

The decision has been made taking into account, where practicable and appropriate the requirements of paragraph 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) on the felling of 1 x Amanogwa Cherry Tree and replace with Cherry Tree – Amanogawa or similar covered by the conservation area.

49 Elmwood was located at the junction of Attimore Road and Elmwood in Welwyn Garden City.  The property was located within the Conservation Area.

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because applicant was an employee of Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council.

There was not a requirement to notify neighbours for a Conservation Area notification for tree work.  However an objection had been received from a neighbour stating:

“I note that no reference was made to the existence or indeed the proposed removal of the tree in question at the time the planning application for the extension. This removal would simply increase my concern about the loss of amenity caused by the proposed development and I find it inconceivable that this was not in contemplation at the time. This tree will provide good screening from the slab side of a significant new extension and I certainly would have raised this as part of my objections before the planning committee”.

Mr R.Robinski, spoke against the application, reiterating the concerns he raised in his statement of objection.

Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor P.Hebden, seconded by Councillor A.Chesterman and

RESOLVED:

(10 voting for and 3 against)

That no objection be made to the proposal.

DRAWING NUMBERS

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 paragraph 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 15 January 2019 to 13 February 2019.

All appeals during this period which were against Officer decisions had been dismissed.

RESOLVED:

That appeal decisions during the period 15 January 2019 to 13 February 2019 be noted.

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) providing 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 16 and 17 (if any) 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 16 (Minute 115 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 Corporate 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 the contents of the report be noted.