Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting.

Councillor Wyatt-Lowe asked the Committee if the minutes of the meeting held on 28 May could be confirmed.

Councillor Symington asked that more detail was given regarding public participation and the rules surrounding this.

Councillor Wyatt-Lowe agreed that this addition should be made.

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Guest and Maddern. Councillor Birnie substituted for Councillor Guest.

Councillor Beauchamp arrived at 19:19.

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 Wyatt-Lowe 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 Wyatt-Lowe reminded the members and the public about the rules regarding public participation as follows:

For each application the officer presents the report to the Committee, then the participants from the public are called to speak. Following this, questions are taken from the Committee along with statements and comments for debate.

Councillor Beauchamp arrived at 19:19 and, therefore, did not participate or vote on Item 5a.

The Case Officer, Jason Seed, introduced the report to members and said that the application had been referred to committee due to objection from Berkhamsted Town Council on the grounds of overdevelopment, impact on the character of the surrounding area, inadequate access, impact on surrounding amenity and impacts of noise on occupiers of the new dwellings.

Martin Allen spoke in objection of the application.

Berkhamsted Town Councillor Anthony Armytage spoke in objection of the application.

Richard Farris and Krzys Lipinski spoke in support of the application.

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

Vote:

For: 3               Against: 5                    Abstained: 1

Councillor Wyatt-Lowe noted that the recommendation falls and asked for a motion to REFUSE.

Councillor Wyatt-Lowe asked for grounds for REFUSAL.

It was instead proposed by Councillor Riddick and seconded by Councillor Birnie to DEFER the application to allow for further information regarding the acoustic fencing as well as clarification on measurements.

Vote:

For: 8               Against: 0                    Abstained: 2

Resolved: That planning permission be DEFERRED.

Councillor Birnie declared that he is the ward councillor for this area but that he would be viewing the application objectively and, therefore, reserved his right to participate.

The Case Officer, Rachel Marber, introduced the report to members and said that the application had been referred to committee due to it being a large scale major which is linked to a proposed obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990).

Nicola Fisher and Marga Pelli spoke in objection of the application.

With no proposals for the officer’s recommendation, Councillor Wyatt-Lowe noted that the recommendation falls and asked for a motion to REFUSE.

It was proposed by Councillor Birnie and seconded by Councillor Beauchamp to REFUSE the application on the grounds of poor daylight and sunlight levels, inadequate parking, overdevelopment, lack of architectural merit and that the application goes against CS12: (a), (b) and (c).

Vote:

For: 9               Against: 0                    Abstained: 1

Resolved: That planning permission be REFUSED.

The meeting was adjourned at 20:55.

The meeting reconvened at 21:06.

The Case Officer, Rachel Marber, introduced the report to members and said that the application had been referred to committee as it had been called in by Councillor Pringle.

Councillor Lara Pringle spoke in objection of the application.

Patrick Doyle, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Birnie and seconded by Councillor Durrant 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:

Conditions

The Case Officer, Rachel Marber, introduced the report to members and said that the application had been referred to committee due to the contrary views of Nash Mills Parish Council.

Alan Briggs and Miranda Kowalczyk spoke in objection of the application.

Nash Mills Parish Councillor Nicola Cobb spoke in objection of the application.

With no proposals for the officer’s recommendation, Councillor Wyatt-Lowe noted that the recommendation falls and asked for a motion to REFUSE.

It was proposed by Councillor Riddick and seconded by Councillor Beauchamp to REFUSE the application on the grounds of overdevelopment, dominance and that the application goes against CS11: (a), (e) and (f) and against CS12: (a), (b), (c) and (g).

Vote:

For: 8               Against: 0                    Abstained: 2

Resolved: That planning permission be REFUSED.

Councillor Uttley declared her personal interest in the application and stood down.

The Case Officer, Martin Stickley, introduced the report to members and said that the application had been referred to committee as it had been called in by former Councillor Janice Marshall.

John Ebdon and Mrs J Townsend spoke in objection of the application.

Councillor Claire Hobson spoke in objection of the application.

Hayden Todd spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Riddick and seconded by Councillor Durrant to GRANT the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote:

For: 5               Against: 1                    Abstained: 3

Resolved: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

The Case Officer, Simon Dunn-Lwin, introduced the report to members and said that the application had been referred to committee as the recommendation was contrary to the Parish Council response.

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

Vote:

For: 8               Against: 0                    Abstained: 2

Resolved: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

Councillor Riddick declared that he operates within this ward, however that he had had no input on the application and reserved his right to participate.

The Case Officer, James Gardner, introduced the report to members and said that the application had been referred to committee as a similar application had been refused by committee.

It was proposed by Councillor Birnie and seconded by Councillor McDowell to DELEGATE the application TO THE GROUP MANAGER WITH A VIEW TO APPROVAL in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote:

For: 8               Against: 0                    Abstained: 2

Resolved: That planning permission be DELEGATED TO THE GROUP MANAGER WITH A VIEW TO APPROVAL subject to the completion of a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

That the following Heads of Terms for the planning obligation be agreed:

·         Affordable Housing – 35%

That the following conditions be agreed:

Conditions

The Case Officer, James Gardner, introduced the report to members and said that the application had been referred to committee due to it being contrary to the views of Little Gaddesden Parish Council.

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

Vote:

For: 8               Against: 0                    Abstained: 2

Resolved: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

Fiona Bogle introduced the report to members on behalf of the Case Officer and said that the application had been referred to committee as the application is recommended for refusal contrary to the views of Wigginton Parish Council.

Marita Henry spoke in support of the application.

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

Vote:

For: 7               Against: 2                    Abstained: 1

Resolved: That planning permission be REFUSED.

That the reason for refusal is as follows:

The application site is located within the Green Belt and Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposed extension would result in a materially larger dwelling on the site than that granted planning permission and the original building thereon and as such would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. This would be definition be harmful to the open character and appearance of the Green Belt contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy. The building in view of its siting is also considered to result in harm to the openness of the area and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside contrary to the NPPF, Policies CS5 and CS24 of the Core Strategy and the Chilterns Building Design Guide SPD.

That the following appeals were noted:

A.   LODGED

B.   WITHDRAWN

C.   FORTHCOMING INQUIRIES

D.   FORTHCOMING INQUIRIES

E.    DISMISSED

F.    ALLOWED

Article 4 Areas for protecting Dacorum’s Employment Areas were agreed.