Agenda and draft minutes

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 04 February 2016 were confirmed by the Members present and were then signed by the Chairman.

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies were received from Councillor R Sutton, Conway and Tindall.

Councillor Mills substituted on behalf of Councillor R Sutton.

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.

R Herbert introduced the report and explained to the committee that this was a hybrid application which meant it is both a full and outline planning application. The outline application relates to the residential proposal and the full planning application is for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site.

This is a new proposal from the ones previously refused on this site and the applicant has engaged proactively to achieve a mutually acceptable scheme.

Hannah Smith (agent) and Michael Pritchard (Bourne End Residents Association) spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Birnie and seconded by Councillor Maddern to delegate to the Group Manager with a view to approve once the unilateral undertaking has been agreed.

Vote

For: 12             Against: 0                    Abstained: 0

Resolved

That planning permission be delegated to the Group Manager with a view to approve once the unilateral undertaking has been agreed subject to the following conditions:

Application withdrawn from the agenda prior to committee meeting.

N Gibbs introduced the report and said it had been brought to committee as it had been called in at the request of Councillor Tindall.

Councillors had concerns over the extended late hours and wanted to strike a balance between the needs of the community versus neighbour amenity.

The recommendation changed to delegate to the Group Manager to approve of 9am-11am opening hours but to discuss the extended evening hours with the applicant.

It was proposed by Councillor Ritchie and seconded by Councillor Maddern to grant the application in line with the new recommendation.

Vote

For: 11             Against: 1                    Abstained: 0

Resolved

That planning permission be GRANTED with a view to approve the morning hours only and subject to the following conditions:      

Councillor Riddick declared an interest in this item and left the room for the duration of the discussion and vote.

E Palmer introduced the report and said this was a resubmission from an application that was refused in August. It had come to the committee due to the contrary views of Flaunden Parish Council.

Chris Watts spoke in support of the application.

Parish Councillor Vivienne Adams and Ian McAleer spoke in objection to this application.

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

The members were concerned that there was no provision for storage of hay and equestrian equipment on the site. There was a concern that additional buildings would be required to maintain the use on site as two of the buildings were proposed to be converted to residential. The members asked for further information to be made available in order for them to assess the application.

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

Vote

For: 2               Against: 6                    Abstained: 3

Having there been no majority to grant this application in line with the officer’s recommendation, it was proposed by Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe and seconded by Councillor Ritchie that the officer’s decision be overturned and the application be deferred pending further discussions with the applicant.

Vote

For: 8               Against: 2                    Abstained: 1

Resolved

That the application be DEFERRED to a future meeting of the Development Control Committee pending further discussions with the applicant and to reassure the committee the equestrian use would be rigorously pursued.

J Seed introduced the report and said it had been brought to committee due to the contrary views of Berkhamsted Town Council.

Garrick Stevens and Dawn Macey spoke in objection to this application.

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

Vote

For: 6               Against: 2                    Abstained: 4

Resolved

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

T Gabriel introduced the item and advised that it had been called in at the request of Councillor Riddick.

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

Vote

For: 7               Against: 2                    Abstained: 3

Resolved

The planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

T Amlak introduced the report and said it was brought to committee due to the contrary views of Berkhamsted Town Council and residents.

Charlotte O’Mahony (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Town Councillor Ian Reay spoke in objection to the application.

Nathan Holmes and Anna Franklin spoke in objection to the application.

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

Vote

For: 2               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 Ritchie and seconded by Councillor Matthews that the officer’s decision be overturned and the application be refused.

Vote

For: 8               Against: 2                    Abstained: 2

Resolved

That the planning application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

The proposed residential development, by virtue of its cramped appearance and inappropriate site layout is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site, which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of this part of the Berkhamsted Conservation Area.  The proposal therefore fails to meet the requirements of Policies CS11, CS12 and CS27 of the Dacorum Core Strategy.

E Palmer introduced the report and said it had been brought to committee due to the contrary views of Tring Town Council.

Elizabeth Brinklow spoke in support of the application.

Ken Newell and Anna Gleig spoke in objection to this application. 

One of the Councillors had walked up and down The Beeches and felt that despite there being some variety in the design and size of dwellings, the proposal would be large and prominent and therefore have an impact on the street scene.

Members were also concerned by the following:

·         the proposal would be overbearing for both No. 7 and 5 The Beeches;

·         the proposal would not be in character with the street scene;

·         the proposal would result in a doubling in size of the dwelling;

·         the proposal was not much smaller than the one previously refused.

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

Vote

For: 2               Against: 7                    Abstained: 3

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

Vote

For: 8               Against: 0                    Abstained: 4

Resolved

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposed extensions fail to integrate with the streetscape character and fail to respect the adjoining properties in terms of scale, height and bulk.  In addition the development will result in an overbearing impact on No. 5 and 7 The Beeches.  The 6% reduction in scale from the last application is not sufficient.  As such the development is contrary to Policy CS11 and CS12 of the Adopted Core Strategy and inappropriate in terms of the requirements of Appendix 3 of the saved Dacorum Borough Local Plan. 

Councillor Ritchie declared a personal interest in this application as is knows the family of the applicant.

Councillor D Collins declared a personal interest in this application as a member of the Chiltern Conservation Board.

They both reserved their right to speak and vote thereon.

The item was introduced by T Gabriel who stated that it had been brought to committee due to the contrary views of Tring Town Council.

Adam Hall 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: 9               Against: 1                    Abstained: 2

Resolved

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

The following appeals were noted:

1. Lodged
2. Dismissed
3. Allowed
   
   

S Whelan drew the members’ attention to the appeal from Doctors Commons Road where costs were awarded against the Council as members failed to produce sufficient evidence to substantiate the reason for refusing permission.