Agenda and draft minutes

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting on 17^th December.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 December 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 C Wyatt-Lowe and Councillor Tindall.

Councillor Bateman 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.

Councillor D Collins reminded the members and public about the rules regarding public participation.

Councillor Matthews declared an interest on this application. Councillor Matthews declared that he had asked Enforcement to investigate and has had informal discussions with the objectors speaking. He reserved his right to speak and vote thereon.

J Seed introduced the report and stated that it has been brought to committee because of the contrary views of Berkhamsted Town Council.

Mr Wright and Mr Hickford spoke in support of the application as the Director and licence holder of the shop. They did not feel they were direct competitors to the Rising Sun pub or the Gatsby and emphasised they were not a pub but a specialist beer retailer. A high percentage of their sales are products that are consumed off site.

Mr Grainger and Mr Wilkes from the Rising Sun pub spoke in objection to this application stating they did not feel the reclassification of the site was appropriate.

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

Vote

For: 5               Against: 7                    Abstained: 1

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

Vote

For: 7               Against: 4                    Abstained: 2

Resolved:

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

·         The Council considers the building will have inadequate access for all users (particularly disabled access) for the proposed use and will therefore be contrary to Policy CS12 (a) of the Core Strategy.

·         In addition it is considered the proposed use is likely to result in noise disturbance and a loss of residential amenity to neighbouring properties contrary to Policy CS12(c).

M Stickley introduced the report and advised members it had been brought to committee due to the contrary views of Tring Town Council. The case officer highlighted that no external changes would be made and there would be some slight internal changes – mainly the locker room turning into a reception area. It was brought to the attention of members that other uses of this building could cause more parking issues.

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

Vote

For: 9               Against: 3                    Abstained: 1

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Councillor Maddern declared a personal interest in this item and left the Chamber for the discussion and vote.

N Gibbs introduced the report and advised that it had come before the committee due to it being called-in by Ward Councillor Jan Maddern. N Gibbs advised that the officer recommendation is for refusal.

Louise Gross and Lisa Bayley spoke in objection to the application.

Zoe Hurst spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Whitman questioned the stability of the land around Highbarns.

S Baker clarified that an independent study had been carried out and work has been remediated and the risk of further collapse has been substantially removed.

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

Vote

For: 5               Against: 6                    Abstained: 1

Having there been no majority to grant this application in line with the officer’s recommendation, it was proposed by Councillor Whitman and seconded by Councillor Ritchie that the officer’s decision be overturned and the application be granted.

Vote

For: 6               Against: 5                    Abstained: 1

Resolved:

Officer’s recommendation overturned – application GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of    three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:  To comply with the requirements of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.    The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match in size, colour and texture those used on the existing building.

Reason:  To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to accord with Policy CS12 of the Core Strategy.

3.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:3505-220B

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

4.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with  the principles of  sustainable design and construction of  Policy CS 29  of Dacorum Core Strategy.

Reason:  To ensure the sustainable development of the site in accordance with Policy CS 29  of Dacorum Core Strategy.

INFORMATIVE:

Carrying Out  Development in the High Barns Chalk Mines Area and Land Stability

The government advice is that where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.

In granting planning permission the local planning authority has fully taken into account the recent geotechnical reports regarding land stability.

J Seed introduced the report and said it had come to committee due to the contrary views of Nash Mills Parish Council who feel if granted; it may set a precedent for the future.

A condition if the application is granted the owner must remove the already existing sign before erecting the new one.

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

Vote

For: 10             Against: 2                    Abstained: 1

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED as per the published report with additional following condition:

Prior to the erection of the advertisement hereby permitted, the existing Abbotts School signage and all fixtures and fittings which are located on the fence adjacent to the application site will be removed

Reason: To minimise the cumulative visual impact of site advertising in accordance with Saved Policy 112 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan.

E Palmer introduced the report and said this application is referred to the Development Control Committee due to the contrary views of Flamsted Parish Council. E Palmer stated that she had added an extra condition under condition 9.

Mr Brooker spoke in objection to this application.

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

Vote

For: 6               Against: 4                    Abstained: 3

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED as per the published report and subject to the following amendment to condition 9:

The applicant should submit a construction management plan stating how the existing dwelling will be demolished and demonstrating how all deliveries to the site, trades personnel can be accommodated on site with causing unnecessary delays or obstruction of the adjacent highway and public right of way. This plan must be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and then carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of Highway safety and to accord with policies CS12 and CS29 of the Core Strategy.

E Palmer introduced the report and said it was in front of the committee as the applicants are employees of Dacorum Borough Council.

It was proposed by Councillor Matthews and seconded by 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 that it had come to committee due to the contrary views of Flamsted Parish Council.

Abi Purser spoke in support of the application.

Parish Councillor Julian Taunton spoke in objection to this application.

Joanne Binns spoke in objection to this application.

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

Vote

For: 3               Against: 8                    Abstained: 2

Having there been no majority to grant this application in line with the officer’s recommendation, it was proposed by Councillor Birnie and seconded by Councillor Maddern 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 Council is not satisfied that the proposed development is a local facility meeting the needs of the village. The proposal therefore constitutes inappropriate development conflicting with policies CS5 and CS6(f) of the Core Strategy 2013.

In addition it is considered the proposal which is sited close to residential properties is likely to result in a loss of amenity to neighbours by way of noise disturbance.  The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy CS12 (c) and (g) of the Core Strategy 2013

Councillor Ritchie declared a personal interest that he knew one of the objectors speaking but he reserved his right to speak and vote thereon.

M Stickley introduced the report and it has been referred to committee because of the contrary views of Nettleden with Potten End Parish Council.

Ms Eades and Mrs Hurst spoke in objection to this application.

Councillor Douris in his role as Ward Councillor spoke in objection to this application.

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

Vote

For: 3               Against: 9                    Abstained: 1

Councillor Whitman left the room at 10.09pm so took no part in the voting for the motion to refuse.

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

Vote

For: 8               Against: 3                    Abstained: 1

Resolved

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

·         The proposed fence by virtue of its height and position will appear visually prominent and harmful to the character and appearance of the streetscene. The proposal will therefore not be sympathetic to the local character and landscaping of the surrounding area and will therefore conflict with Policies CS6, CS11 and CS12.

Councillor Whitman returned at 10.11pm

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

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

Vote

For: 8               Against: 3                    Abstained: 2

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

M Stickley introduced the report and said it had been referred to committee as the land is owned by Dacorum Borough Council.

Mr Hale spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Birnie and seconded by Councillor Fisher 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 Herbert introduced the report and said it had been referred to the committee as the land is owned by Dacorum Borough Council. If approved, the structures would only be erected for two years.

It was proposed by Councillor Whitman and seconded by 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:

The following reports were noted:

1.    Withdrawn

2.    Forthcoming inquiries

3.    Forthcoming hearings

4.    Dismissed