Agenda and minutes

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

Before the meeting started, A Horner advised members that the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had been published on Tuesday 24^th July and is an update from the previous plan. He said there was a change in content and layout but officers have reviewed the document and have not identified any policy changes affecting the recommendations on the agenda tonight.

The minutes of the meeting held on 05 July 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=1726

To receive any apologies for absence

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

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 228209 or by email: Member.support@dacorum.gov.uk

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.

Please note: If an application is recommended for approval, only objectors can invoke public speaking and then supporters will have the right to reply. Applicants can only invoke speaking rights where the application recommended for refusal.

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

N Sultan reminded members that they could only take into account the material planning considerations. In a previous meeting where this scheme was on the agenda, submissions were made about third party disputes and this is not a material planning consideration.

B Curtain introduced the item to members. She explained that this was not before members for determination but wanted members views to form part of the appeal statement after the applicant had submitted an appeal for non-determination.

Members were concerned about the amount of parking provided and wanted this to form another reason for refusal.

It was proposed by Councillor Ritchie and seconded by Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe to endorse the officer’s reasons for refusal with the inclusion of a reason for refusal based on parking.

Vote

For: 7               Against: 0                    Abstained: 0

Resolved

That members confirmed that they would have REFUSED the application if they were in a position to determine the application for the following reasons:

The proposed development fails to meet the requirements of Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy 2013; Affordable Housing and SPD Affordable Housing in that the scheme would not provide policy compliant affordable housing. 

Insufficient information has been submitted for the LPA to form a detailed understanding of the schemes viability. The viability assessment submitted does not provide the necessary information or justification for the assumptions adopted and the values/ calculations relied upon.  It has not therefore been adequately demonstrated that it would not be viable to meet policy requirements. A Section 106 agreement has not therefore been agreed to secure provision

Insufficient on-site parking has been provided to serve the 305 apartments and the other uses (gym, coffee shop, function room and library) contained within the proposal.

This shortfall of spaces would lead to an overspill of vehicles which would have a negative impact on the surrounding road network and would lead to issues relating to congestion and highway safety, contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS8 and CS12 and policies 57, 58 and Appendix 5 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (1999-2011).

I Keen introduced the item to members and said it had been referred to the committee due to the contrary views of Little Gaddesden Parish Council.

Parish Councillor Louise Archer spoke in objection to the application.

Chris Watts 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 Ritchie and seconded by Councillor Birnie to overturn the officer’s recommendation and refuse the application.

Vote

For: 4               Against: 0                    Abstained: 3

Resolved

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. By reason of the number of residential units, associated parking and amenity space, the proposal would represent overdevelopment resulting in an excessive dwelling density that would be inappropriate within its rural context to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area and the surrounding countryside.  The development would therefore be contrary to Policies CS11 and CS12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy 2013.

2. The proposed layout would incorporate insufficient amenity space for the dwellings with garden sizes below average standards set out within saved Appendix 3 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011 which would lead to unsatisfactory living conditions for occupiers of the development, contrary to Policies CS11 and CS12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy 2013.

3. By reason of the number and size of residential units and the proposed site layout, the development would provide insufficient off-street parking which would lead to on-road parking that would have an adverse impact on the free flow of traffic and safety of the adjacent highway network noting the site's location at a road intersection where the national speed limit applies.  As such the development would be contrary to Policy CS12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy 2013.

J Reid introduced the item to members and said it had been referred to the committee as Dacorum Borough Council is both the land owner and the applicant.

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

Vote

For: 7               Against: 0                    Abstained: 0

Resolved

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

B Curtain introduced the items to members and said it had been referred to the committee due to a councillor call-in.

Mr and Mrs Reynolds spoke in objection to the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Ritchie but having there been no seconder to the application, it was proposed by Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe and seconded by Councillor Birnie to overturn the officer’s recommendation and refuse the application.

Vote

For: 5               Against: 1                    Abstained: 1

Resolved

That planning permission be REFUSED due to the following reasons:

1. By reason of its Size, Scale, Height and Position the new dwelling proposed to Plot 4 to the rear would limit light level and appear visually intrusive and overbearing to the adjacent bungalow; No. 39. The proposal would adversely affect residential amenity and therefore fails to accord with Policy CS12 ( c) of the Core Strategy 2013.
   
   
2. By reason of its size, design and layout, the terrace of three dwellings to the front of the site would appear incongruous and out of keeping with the street scene. This section of Adeyfield Road is characterised by detached and semi-detached properties. The introduction of a terrace of properties, three storeys in height to the rear would appear at odds with the existing streetscape character and therefore fail to successfully integrate. The proposal would thus be contrary to Policies CS11 and CS12 (f) and (g) of the Core Strategy 2013.
   
   
3. The proposal fails to provide a safe and satisfactory access for all users and does not improve road safety. The position of the application site at the brow of the hill and close to the junction with Mountfield Road, together with the intensification of the use of the site for four dwellings in place of the existing one would adversely affect the safety and operation of the adjacent highway. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy CS8 and CS12 (a) of the Core Strategy.

J Gardner introduced the item to members and said it had been referred to the committee as it had been called in by Councillor Riddick.

Lucinda Crabtree spoke in objection to the application.

Andrew Boothby 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: 3               Against: 1                    Abstained: 3

Resolved

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

R Freeman introduced the item to members and said it had been referred to the committee due to the contrary views of Aldbury Parish Council.

Alexandra Pearce spoke in objection to the application.

Parish Councillor Rob McCarthy spoke in objection to the application.

In his role as ward councillor, Councillor Stan Mills spoke in objection to the application.

Simon Voysey and Simon Gill spoke in support of the application.

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

Vote

For: 4               Against: 2                    Abstained: 1

Resolved

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

R Freeman introduced the report to members and said it had been referred to the committee due to the contrary views of Bovingdon Parish Council.

Tom Senior and John Mawer spoke in objection to the application.

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

Vote

For: 4               Against: 0                    Abstained: 3

Resolved

That planning permission be REFUSED due to the following reasons:

That the provision of the access track and car park, in view of their scale, use of materials including chalk and overall appearance, would have a significant and detrimental appearance to the countryside and as such would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt contrary to Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy

J Gardner introduced the item to members and said it had been referred to the committee due to the contrary views of Markyate Parish Council.

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

Vote

For: 6               Against: 1                    Abstained: 0

Resolved

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

R Freeman introduced the report to members and said that it had been referred to the committee due to the contrary views of Berkhamsted Town Council.

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

Vote

For: 7               Against: 0                    Abstained: 0

Resolved

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

That the following appeals be noted:

1. Lodged
2. Forthcoming inquiries
3. Forthcoming hearings
4. Dismissed

A Horner said that this report was for information and this case would not be covered under the quarterly enforcement reports. This case was taken to the magistrate’s court and the defendants were given the maximum fine for each offence plus the council were awarded costs and there was a small victim surcharge. The council have put out press releases highlighting this prosecution to act as a deterrent to others.

Councillor Riddick congratulated officers on the successful prosecution and if the council promotes it well, it will send a clear message to others. He asked is there was a risk of non-collection if the company goes into liquidation.

A Horner said there is always that risk.