Agenda and draft minutes

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 November 2015 were confirmed by the Members present and were then signed by the Chairman.

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies were received from Councillor Maddern, C Wyatt-Lowe and R Sutton.

Councillor Bateman substituted on behalf of Councillor Maddern and Councillor Mrs Bassadone substituted on behalf of Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe.

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 complete the pink interest sheet which will be made available at the meeting and then hand this to the Committee Clerk at the meeting

Councillor D Collins 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 Control 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.

The Chairman reminded the members and public about the rules regarding public participation.

J Doe, Assistant Director for Planning and Regeneration, made a statement before the presentation of the item due to the important nature of the application. J Doe made the following points:

• This is a major planning application and probably the most complex proposal the Borough has had to deal with in the last 15 years.
• Planning decisions are rarely black and white and they turn on the balance of evidence.
• This application was received on 19^th March 2015 and it has taken almost 9 months to come to the Committee for a decision – the impact on the Town Centre and how this part of Maylands will deliver jobs had to be carefully assessed.
• Officers have obtained specialist consultancy advice on both retail and employment impact.
• This application has been placed under great scrutiny before it has come to the Committee in order for the best quality information to be presented.
• The scheme will generate high levels of traffic but the Highway Authority is satisfied that the impact is acceptable if a filter lane for east bound traffic on the A414 St Albans Road connecting to the Maylands Avenue roundabout is implemented.
• The site currently has planning permission for an office development which will generate more traffic than a retail scheme.
• The impact of traffic will be spread across the day and week whereas an office development will have traffic concentrated at peak hours during weekdays.
• The site is designated in the Maylands Masterplan and associated Gateway development brief for commercial or B class uses and on the face of it there is a conflict with the mainly retail led composition of the application proposals, though it is worth noting that of the 16,000 sq m proposed here, 3,000 sq m is for office development.
• There is a target for 10,000 jobs to be delivered over 2006-2031. This target will not be compromised by allowing this application which will deliver around 550 jobs.
• Could be argued that the site should be reserved for suitable commercial or office proposals but this site has been vacant for over a decade with no suitable proposals being submitted.
• The Council estimates that currently, 95% of Maylands is occupied or committed by approved proposals.
• Government advice in the NPPF is that alternative proposals should be treated on their merits where there is no reasonable prospect of allocated employment uses coming forward.
• The report by Chase and Partners shows very strong retail interest in Hemel Hempstead from retailers, with enough capacity to occupy both this and the Jarman site.
• Retail forecasts show a need for a new retail space that cannot be met in the Town Centre.
• There is a case for refusal but this could be mitigated by the imposition of conditions.
• The applicant has agreed to the conditions and has volunteered to enter into a s106 agreement to enforce them. This is not a fashion-led retail park so the conditions provide a safe guard for the Town Centre.

F Bogle then presented the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

A Parrish introduced the report and advised that it had been referred to the Committee as it had been called in by Ward Councillor Marshall.

Councillor Riddick questioned the under carriage heating and who would be maintaining it, paying for its upkeep and what happens if it fails.

A Parrish said there will be two backup systems and a backup generator in case of failure. This has been accepted by the Highway Authority and a management company would be set up in the conditions.

Mr Donny Gow spoke on behalf of residents. They are mainly opposing the traffic flow, density and parking. Mr Donny Gow said he had already witnessed an increase in traffic. Sunnyhill Road is very narrow, just 5.3m in width and Melsted Road is just 4.9m in width. This is narrowed by the parking on the street. Emergency vehicles already struggle with access. Furthermore, school children use the pedestrian cut through from Warners End Road and will be walking directly across this new access road.

Councillor Marshall in her role as Ward Councillor spoke in objection to this application. She said the principle problem was the area of the site which is situated on a difficult steep corner and people already have great difficulty negotiating this junction. In December 2014, there was a road traffic collision on this junction. There is also a service road to properties in Pinewood Gardens near to this junction as well as an access road for the well-used allotments to the west of this site. There is heavy footfall with pedestrian access through to Warners End Road and there are three schools in the nearby area. Furthermore, the heating system will only work in freezing conditions and does not address the problem when the road is wet.

Mr Vince Millen spoke in support of this application. He stated that the Council had identified this area for development, not the applicant. Half the site already has planning permission and this has not yet been developed because it was felt a comprehensive scheme would be better for the site.

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 Riddick that the officer’s decision be overturned and the application be refused.

Vote

For: 11             Against: 0        Abstained: 2

Resolved:

Officer’s recommendation overturned – application REFUSED for the following reasons:

·         The proposed development of 25 dwellings would constitute overdevelopment of the site and give rise to an intensification of traffic over the extant approval 4/00552/12/MOA onto a dangerous junction and onto a sub-standard gradient of access road.  The proposal would therefore be harmful to the character of the area and to the safety of the public / private highway contrary to Policies CS11 and CS12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy September 2013, saved Policy 51 and Appendix 3 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011 and Residential Character Appraisal HCA9: Hammerfield North of the Area Based Policies SPG 2004.

·         The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

E Palmer introduced the report and stated that this application was an amendment to a previous approval. The Parish Council have removed their objection but did not want to make a decision on the application so it has been referred to the Committee.

Mr Higgenbottom and Mr Neil spoke in support of the application. They advised that these minor amendments are needed due to previous errors in drawings.

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

Vote

For: 13             Against: 0        Abstained: 0

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

N Gibbs introduced the report and advised that it had been referred to the Committee due to the contrary views of Berkhamsted Town Council. He said that the placement of the building will act as a wind break due to its placement in a valley.

Councillor Ashbourn spoke against the application in his role as a Berkhamsted Town Councillor. The Town Council object as they feel the building is out of character in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Mr Merrett spoke in support of the application. This new building would be used for storage and will be accessible without having to open the main pavilion building. The club cannot afford to extend the main building and they felt that adding a second storey would create an eye sore for the local area. The placement of the building is such that it will serve the second cricket pitch.

Having there been no proposer to grant this application in line with the officer’s recommendation, it was proposed by Councillor Bateman and seconded by Councillor Matthews that the officer’s decision be overturned and the application be refused.

Vote

For: 8   Against: 2     Abstained: 3

Resolved:

Officer’s recommendation overturned – application REFUSED for the following reasons:

The proposed development by reason of its prominent and isolated location would cause significant harm to the visual amenity to this part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Furthermore, the proposed development would harm the openness of the Green Belt and would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The development is therefore contrary to the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS5 and CS24 of the Dacorum Core Strategy and saved Policy 97 of Dacorum Borough Local Plan.

R Marber introduced the report and advised that it is before the Committee due to the contrary views of Bovingdon Parish Council. R Marber said this was a retrospective application as the works have already been carried out.

Ms Carol Peacock spoke in objection to this application as the Chair of the local residents association.

Members questioned if they could add a condition on to prevent further development of the garage.

S Whelan advised that this application was to change Condition 3 on the original application so it is not possible to add a condition onto an existing one.

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

Vote

For: 8   Against: 1        Abstained: 4

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

P Stanley introduced the report. This item was deferred at the previous meeting for further information. Planning permission is not needed for the hardstanding as it is to the side of the building.

Councillor Birnie left the room at 22.25pm

Mr M Barnes spoke in support of this application.

Councillor Birnie returned at 22.28pm so did not take part in the voting of this item.

It was proposed by Councillor Whitman and seconded by Councillor Riddick to grant the application 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:

N Gibbs introduced the item and advised that it is before the committee due to the contrary views of Tring Town Council.

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

Vote

For: 12             Against: 0        Abstained: 1

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

N Gibbs introduced the item and advised that it is before the committee due to the contrary views of Tring Town Council.

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

Vote

For: 12             Against: 0        Abstained: 1

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

R Marber introduced the report and advised it was before the committee due to the contrary views of Nettleden with Potten End Parish Council.

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

Vote

For: 12             Against: 0        Abstained: 1

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

The following reports were noted:

1.    Forthcoming Inquiries

2.    Forthcoming hearings

3.    Dismissed

P Stanley introduced the report and explained he was not expecting a decision but was hoping for a discussion from the members to find out their thoughts on the proposal. As this would involve a change to the Council’s constitution, the report will need to go to Full Council.

The benefits of delegating authority to officers will allow them to act promptly and shorten the time that companies benefit from illegal adverts. It will also allow resources to be used efficiently and effectively. Furthermore, it will mean less Part 2 reports presented to the committee and will allow officers to spend more time on higher priority cases.

East Herts District Council is looking to delegate authority to officers and they revealed that six local authorities already had delegated powers in respect for prosecuting for breaches of the advertisement regulations.

P Stanley said that the proposal is to submit quarterly reports to the committee to update members on the progress of prosecutions.

Members were happy with the proposal and were happy to support the report when it is submitted to Full Council.

Resolved:

That, under s.100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 Schedule 12A Part 1, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, the public be excluded during the item in Part II of the Agenda for this meeting, because it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, that if members of the public were present during this item there would be disclosure to them of exempt information relating to an ongoing enforcement investigation and proposed action by the Council in connection with the investigation into an alleged breach in planning control, being also a criminal offence under Section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. (LGA 1972 Schedule 12A Part 1 Paragraph 7 as amended by The Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006

Full details in the Part 2 minutes