Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting (these are circulated separately)

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 October 2017 were confirmed by the Members present and were then signed by the Chairman.

An addendum to the agenda was circulated before the meeting.  A copy of the addendum can be found on the DBC website on the following link:

https://democracy.dacorum.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=159&MId=1431 

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies of absence were received from Councillors Guest and Matthews.

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe chaired the meeting in the absence of Councillor Guest.

To receive any declarations of interest

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a personal interest in a matter who attends

a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered -

(i)            must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest

becomes apparent and, if the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest, or a personal
interest which is also prejudicial

(ii)           may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter (and must withdraw

to the public seating area) unless they have been granted a dispensation.

A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Members’ Register of Interests, or is not the subject of a pending notification, must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal and prejudicial interests are defined in Part 2 of the Code of Conduct For Members

[If a member is in any doubt as to whether they have an interest which should be declared they

should seek the advice of the Monitoring Officer before the start of the meeting]

It is requested that Members declare their interest at the beginning of the relevant agenda item and it will be noted by the Committee Clerk for inclusion in the minutes.

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe asked Members to remember to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary or other Interests at the beginning of the relevant planning application.

An opportunity for members of the public to make statements or ask questions in accordance with the rules as to public participation.

You need to inform the council in advance if you wish to speak by contacting Member Support on Tel: 01442 228221 or by email: Member.support@dacorum.gov.uk

There are limits on how much of each meeting can be taken up with people having their say and how long each person can speak for.  The permitted times are specified in the table above and are allocated for each of the following on a 'first come, first served basis':

·         Town/Parish Council and Neighbourhood Associations;

·         Objectors to an application;

·         Supporters of the application.

Every person must, when invited to do so, address their statement or question to the Chairman of the Committee.

Every person must after making a statement or asking a question take their seat to listen to the reply or if they wish join the public for the rest of the meeting or leave the meeting.

The questioner may not ask the same or a similar question within a six month period except for the following circumstances:

(a)       deferred planning applications which have foregone a significant or material change since originally being considered

(b)       resubmitted planning applications which have foregone a significant or material change

(c)       any issues which are resubmitted to Committee in view of further facts or information to be considered.

At a meeting of the Development Management Committee, a person, or their representative, may speak on a particular planning application, provided that it is on the agenda to be considered at the meeting.

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe reminded the members and the public about the rules regarding public participation.

The order of the agenda was changed to allow for those applications with public speaking to be heard first. The items are minuted in the order they were heard.

A Harman introduced the item to members and said it had been referred to the committee due to the contrary views of Nash Mills Parish Council.

Councillor Birnie asked if condition 2 could be amended to clearly prohibit the use of the building for residential use.

A Harman said this would be possible.

It was proposed by Councillor Birnie and seconded by Councillor Fisher to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation and the amendment to condition 2.

Vote

For: 6               Against: 5                    Abstained: 1

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

The outbuilding (gym) hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes incidental to the residential use of the dwelling known as 17 Highclere Drive. The building shall not be used at any time for the provision of additional living accommodation.

Reason:  For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of residential amenity and to accord with Adopted Core Strategy CS12.

S Robbins introduced the report and said it had been referred to the committee as Councillor Timmis had called it in.

Julian Taunton and Stephanie Jackson spoke in objection to the application.

Samantha Devoti spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Whitman and seconded by Councillor Birnie to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote

For: 7               Against: 0                    Abstained: 5

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

J Seed introduced the item and said it had been referred to committee due to the contrary views of Tring Town Council. He explained to members that there is no national policy to retain petrol stations so it is not a planning consideration.

Alastair Durno, Dominic Pezet and Stan Mills spoke in objection to the application.

Kieran Rushe spoke in support of the application.

Having there been no proposer to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation, it was proposed by Councillor Birnie and seconded by Councillor P Hearn to refuse the application.

Vote

For: 11             Against: 0                    Abstained: 1

Resolved:

That planning permission be REFUSED due to the following reason:

The proposed development, by virtue of its height, extent of site coverage, positioning and overall scale is considered to be overbearing and incompatible with the surrounding area and would result in development which is harmful to the character of both the existing street scene and the visual amenities of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposals would fail to make a positive contribution to the townscape of the area, would not be of high quality and would not reflect the identity of the local surroundings. The proposals are therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS4, CS11, CS12, Saved Policy 111 of the DBLP and Paragraphs 17 and 58 of the NPPF.

Councillor Tindall declared an interest in this application and remove himself from the chamber. He did not speak or vote on this item.

B Curtain introduced the report and said it had been referred to committee due to Councillor Tindall having called in the application.

Pamela Anderson spoke in objection to the application.

Martin Stent spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Ritchie and seconded by Councillor P Hearn to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote

For: 5               Against: 1                    Abstained: 5

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

A Parrish introduced the item to members and said it had been referred to the committee due to the contrary views of Berkhamsted Town Council.

Penny Marshall spoke in objection to the application.

Graham Boyce spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Fisher and seconded by Councillor Whitman to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote

For: 7               Against: 3                    Abstained: 2

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

A Parrish introduced the item and said it had been referred to the committee due to the contrary views of Tring Town Council.

Sara Willis and Katie Kennedy spoke in objection to the application.

Having there been no proposer to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation, it was proposed by Councillor P Hearn and seconded by Councillor Whitman to refuse the application.

Vote

For: 11             Against: 0                    Abstained: 1

Resolved:

That planning permission be REFUSED due to the following reasons:

The proposed development, by reason of its height, scale and massing, would be harmful to the visual outlook of adjoining residential occupiers, and out of scale and character with the adjoining development at 21 and 22 Brook Street. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy September 2013, and the Development Principles in residential character appraisal TCA15 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan Area Based Policies Supplementary Planning Guidance May 2004.

J Seed introduced the report and said it had been referred to the committee due to the contrary views of Chipperfield Parish Council. He advised members that the recommendation was to refer the application back to the Group Manager to approve after a unilateral undertaking regarding future occupancy of the dwelling had been completed.

Michael Fitzmaurice and Peter Baker spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Birnie and seconded by Councillor Maddern that the application be granted in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote

For: 11             Against: 0                    Abstained: 1

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

P Newton introduced the item and said it had been referred to committee due to minor layout changes due to specific user requirements.

Catherine Bruce spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Tindall and seconded by Councillor Maddern to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote

For: 11             Against: 0                    Abstained: 1

Resolved:

That planning permission be DELEGATED to the Head of Development Management and Planning with a view to approval subject to the completion of a Deed of Variation (or other legal mechanism) to the planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure that its provisions (listed below) relate equally to this revised proposal:-

Highways

·         Provision of highway improvement works to Breakspear Way / Green Lane roundabout details of which are to be agreed by the LPA and applicant, in consultation with HCC and Highways England, by [insert date] and construction commenced by [insert date].  The works shall be completed prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted.  

·         Traffic Regulation Orders to address signage and speed limit changes in the vicinity of Wood End Lane

·         S278 works to upgrade the Boundary Way / Buncefield Lane link to accommodate vehicular traffic as shown on RPS drawing ref: NK018226-RPS-XX-XX-DR-C-0100-A

Maylands Urban Realm Improvements

·         Contribution of £13,267.40 towards delivery of urban realm improvements identified on Sheet 22 of the Maylands Business Park Improvements Specification.

·         Contribution of £47,250 towards delivery of urban realm improvements identified on Sheet 23 and 24 of the Maylands Business Park Improvements Specification.

Public Open Space

·         Provision of Public Open Space as identified on Barry Chinn Associates drawing ref: 1644/16-08 Rev D

·         Commitment to ongoing management and maintenance of the public open space by Prologis in perpetuity

Ecology

·         Contribution towards delivery of ecological enhancements on land owned by Dacorum Borough Council

·         Provision of management plan 

and on completion of the completion of the variation to the legal agreement be subject to the following conditions:

R Marber introduced the item and said it had been referred to the committee due to the contrary views of Tring Town Council.

Christopher Higenbottam spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Whitman and seconded by Councillor Maddern to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote

For: 10             Against: 0                    Abstained: 2

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

A Harman introduced the item and said it had been referred to committee due to the contrary views of Berkhamsted Town Council.

It was proposed by Councillor Maddern and seconded by Councillor Tindall to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote

For: 4               Against: 6                    Abstained: 2

Having there been no majority to grant the application, it was proposed by Councillor Bateman and seconded by Councillor Ritchie to refuse the application.

Vote

For: 5               Against: 4                    Abstained: 2

Resolved:

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

By reason of the size, scale and spacing to boundaries of the proposed dwellings, the development would represent a large and overbearing feature within its plot to the detriment of the appearance of the area, contrary to Policies CS11 and CS12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy 2013.

Article 35

Planning permission has been refused for the clear reason set out in this decision notice. The Council acted proactively through positive engagement with the applicant during the determination process; however Members were of the view that the proposed amendments did not overcome a fundamental objection. As the Council has attempted to find solutions, the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) have been met and the Council has acted in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

This application was deferred to the next committee meeting

This application was deferred to the next committee meeting

This application was deferred to the next committee meeting

This application was deferred to the next committee meeting

This application was deferred to the next committee meeting

The following appeals were noted:

1. Lodged
2. Dismissed
3. Allowed