Agenda and minutes

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2018 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=1437

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies of absence were received from Councillors Maddern, Matthews and Tindall.

Councillor Peter substituted on behalf of Councillor Matthews.

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 Guest 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

Please note the Development Management Committee will finish at 10.30pm and any unheard applications will be deferred to the next meeting.

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 Guest reminded the members and the public about the rules regarding public participation.

J Seed introduced the item to members. It has been referred to committee after being called in by Councillor Guest, Chairman of the Development Management Committee.

Anne Box and Mr Belben spoke in objection to the application.

In her role as ward councillor, Councillor Howard spoke in objection to the application.

James McConnell spoke in support of the application.

Members discussed issue surrounding the mass and bulk of the proposed development and its design. Issues were also raised about the traffic in the surrounding area and the impact on air pollution.

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

Vote

For: 9                           Against: 0                    Abstained: 2

Resolved

That the planning application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

The proposed development by reason of its height, scale, design and massing would be overbearing when viewed from the surrounding area, particularly the rear gardens / windows of the properties on Ebberns Road thereby detracting from visual and residential amenity. The proposals would also be out of character with the surrounding area through their design and bulk to the detriment of the character, setting and appearance of the surrounding area. Therefore the proposals conflict with Policies CS11, CS12 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe declared an interest in the item. She was speaking as an objector on the item and admitted she was not entering the discussion with an open mind. Therefore, she would not be speaking or voting on this item and would leave the Chamber for the vote.

A Harman introduced the item to members and said it had been referred to committee as it had been called in by Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe.

In her role as ward councillor, Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe spoke in objection to the application.

Members were not convinced that, on the balance of probability, a continuous use had not been adequately demonstrated,

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

Vote

For: 8                           Against: 0                    Abstained: 2

Resolved

That planning permission be REFUSED due to the following reasons:

The applicant has provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that on the balance of probability the land (as shown within the red outline of the submitted Site Plan) has been used continuously for B8 storage and ancillary purposes for a period of ten years preceding the date of this application. Furthermore aerial photography indicates that the use being sought has not taken place continuously during the relevant 10 year period.

Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, a Certificate of Lawful Development cannot be issued for the use of the land for B8 storage purposes.

E Palmer introduced the item to members and said it had been referred to committee due to the contrary views of Flamstead Parish Council.

Charlotte Papworth spoke in support of the application.

Councillor P Hearn left the chamber at 8.45pm.

Councillor P Hearn return to the chamber at 8.48pm

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

Vote

For: 8                           Against: 1                    Abstained: 1

Resolved

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

S Robbins introduced the item to members and said it had been referred to committee due to the contrary views of Tring Town Council.

Mr and Mrs Hetherington spoke in objection to the application.

Edward Hunt spoke in support of the application.

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

Vote

For: 3               Against: 0                    Abstained: 8

Resolved

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

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

David Elder spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe and seconded by Councillor Ritchie to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote

For: 10             Against: 0                    Abstained: 1

Resolved

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

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

Jonathan Edwards spoke in objection to the application.

George Young 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 overturn the officer’s recommendation and refuse the application.

Vote

For: 6               Against: 0                    Abstained: 5

Resolved

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

The proposed extension by virtue of its height, size and bulk would be detrimental to the character of the overall street scene and would cause loss of light to the adjacent neighbour’shabitable room. It would therefore fail to comply with Policy CS12 of the Core Strategy.

Councillor P Hearn and Councillor Conway left at 10pm

R Herbert gave members an update on the progress of the Spencer’s Park application. He said is had been six months since permission was granted and there had been a delay with the s.106 agreement so this update was to keep members informed. The s.106 agreement has been under negotiation for a long time; the final draft was received on 8^th March and is due to be agreed imminently. .

Councillor Riddick asked if the length of time to negotiate the s.106 agreement was because of any contentious issues or was it just procedural.

C Gaunt said the issues raised by the County Council weren’t concerning.

Councillor Ritchie commented that although primary school places were being created, what about secondary schools.

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe said there was capacity in the area for school places.

The following appeals were noted:

1. Lodged
2. Withdrawn
3. Forthcoming hearings