Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 May were confirmed by the Members present.

Hard-copy minutes will be signed by the Chair when restrictions are lifted.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor R Sutton.

Councillor Graham Sutton was supposed to be substituting for Councillor Rosie Sutton but apologies for absence were also received from Councillor Graham 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 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.

Members of the public or press who wish to attend the meeting remotely must make a request in writing to the Assistant Director (Corporate and Contracted Services) by emailing member.support@dacorum.gov.uk by 5pm on the Wednesday preceding the meeting.

Members of the public may view/listen to the meeting or may register to speak.

Members of the public wishing to make statements or ask questions should do so 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 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.

Councillors Guest declared that she and her husband were both patients at the Parkwood Drive Doctors Surgery. Councillor Hobson also declared that she was a patient at the Parkwood Drive Doctors Surgery.

Legal Advisor, Jacqueline Hutton, confirmed that these constituted personal, not prejudicial, interests and, therefore, Councillors Guest and Hobson participated and voted on this item.

The Case Officer, James Gardner, introduced the report to Members and said that the application had been referred to the Committee due to objection received and DBC has an interest in land.

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

Vote:

For: 12                          Against: 0                  Abstained: 0       

Resolved: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

Conditions

1.        The development hereby permitted shall begin 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans/documents:

            102_1     Rev. I

            125_D     Rev. E

            126_B     Rev. B

            110_B     Rev. B

            111_B     Rev. B

            R3_3751019_LA01

            778225-MLM-ZZ-XX-RP-J-0001 22/01/2020

            Proposed GP Surgery Extension Parkwood Drive, Hemel Hempstead Travel Plan (dated January 2020)

            1944-TEW-ZZ-XX-DR-E-4000-120-S0-P01

            1944-TEW-RP-E-External lighting calculations -S0-P01

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

 3.        (a)        The Local Planning Authority is of the opinion that the Phase 1 Contamination Assessment submitted at the planning application stage (Document Reference: Assura Aspire Ltd 778225-MLM-ZZ-XX-RP-J-0001 22/01/2020) indicates a reasonable likelihood of harmful contamination and so no development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a Site Investigation (Phase II environmental risk assessment) report has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority which includes:

            (i)         A full identification of the location and concentration of all pollutants on this site and the presence of relevant receptors, and;

            (ii)        The results from the application of an appropriate risk assessment methodology.

            (b)       No development approved by this permission (other than that necessary for the discharge of this condition) shall be commenced until a Remediation Method Statement report; if required as a result of (a), above; has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

            (c)        This site shall not be occupied, or brought into use, until:

            (i)         All works which form part of the Remediation Method Statement report pursuant to the discharge of condition (b) above have been fully completed and if required a formal agreement is submitted that commits to ongoing monitoring and/or maintenance of the remediation scheme.

            (ii)        A Remediation Verification Report confirming that the site is suitable for use has been submitted to, and agreed by, the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: To ensure that the issue of contamination is adequately addressed and to ensure a satisfactory development, in accordance with Core Strategy (2013)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Case Officer, Heather Edey, introduced the report to Members and said that the application had been referred to the Committee as the recommendation was contrary to the views of Tring Town Council.

Tring Town Councillor Christopher Townsend spoke in objection to the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Wyatt-Lowe and seconded by Councillor Oguchi to GRANT the application in line with the officer recommendation.

Councillor Maddern declared that she had lost connection during the item and, therefore, did not vote.

Vote:

For: 3                          Against: 6                    Abstained: 2

Councillor Guest noted that the officer recommendation fell and asked for a motion to REFUSE.

It was proposed by Councillor McDowell and seconded by Councillor Beauchamp to REFUSE the application on the grounds that the proposed development, by reason of its cramped layout, density and design would result in overdevelopment of the plot, causing harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims of Policies CS11 and CS12 of the Core Strategy (2013).

Vote:

For: 6                          Against: 3                    Abstained: 2      

Resolved: That planning permission be REFUSED.

Councillor Guest stated that this application had been deferred to the Development Management Committee meeting scheduled to take place on Thursday 2^nd July 2020.

Councillor Durrant declared his interest in this item as he was the applicant. He did not participate or vote on this item.

The Case Officer, Martin Stickley, introduced the report to Members and said that the application had been referred to the Committee as the applicant is a Councillor.

It was proposed by Councillor Beauchamp and seconded by Councillor Maddern to GRANT the application in line with the officer recommendation.

Councillor Symington declared that she had lost connection during the item and, therefore, did not vote.

Vote:

For: 9                          Against: 0                                Abstained: 1

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

Condition(s) and Reason(s):

 1.        The development hereby permitted shall begin 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans/documents:

            0854/01C

            0854/02C

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

3.           Prior to the first use of any structures hereby permitted the double-decker bus as shown on the existing site plan (reference: 0854/01, March 2020) shall be permanently removed from site.

Reason: In the interest of the openness, character and appearance of the Green Belt in accordance with Policies CS1 and CS5 of the Dacorum Core Strategy (2013)

Informatives:

 1.        Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant during the determination process which led to improvements to the scheme. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2015.

The meeting adjourned at 8:06pm

The meeting reconvened at 8:20pm

The Case Officer, Robert Freeman, introduced the report to Members and said that the application had been referred to the Committee as the recommendation was contrary to the views of the Parish Council.

Steven Cosgrave-Attwell spoke in objection to the application.

James Cosgrave spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Maddern and seconded by Councillor Uttley to GRANT the application in line with the officer recommendation.

Vote:

For: 10                        Against: 0                    Abstained: 2      

Resolved: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out below:

Condition(s) and Reason(s):

The Case Officer, Robert Freeman, introduced the report to Members and said that the application had been referred to the Committee in view of the contrary recommendation of the Parish Council.

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

Vote:

For: 10                        Against: 0                    Abstained: 2        

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

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall begin 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 development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the materials specified on the approved plans and application form

Reason:  To make sure that the appearance of the building is suitable and that it contributes to the character of the area in accordance with Policies CS11 and CS12 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2013).

3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans/documents:

NAJ 004 F 2020 (Elevations - Scheme C)

NAJ 004 F (Ground Floor Plan)

NAJ 004 G (First Floor Plan)

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

The Case Officer, Heather Edey, introduced the report to Members and said that the application had been referred to the Committee as the recommendation was contrary to the view of Tring Town Council.

Tring Town Councillor Rosemarie Hollinghurst spoke in objection to the application.

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

Councillor Oguchi declared that she had lost connection during the item and, therefore, did not vote.

Vote:

For: 3                          Against: 5                    Abstained: 3

Councillor Guest noted that the officer recommendation fell and asked for a motion to REFUSE.

It was proposed by Councillor McDowell and seconded by Councillor Symington to REFUSE the application by reason of its poor design, the existing fencing/enclosure would appear an intrusive feature, failing to integrate with the streetscape character. The development would therefore be contrary to Policies CS11 and CS12 of the Core Strategy (2013).

Vote:

For: 6                          Against: 3                    Abstained: 2

Resolved: That planning permission be REFUSED.

The Case Officer, Colin Lecart, introduced the report to Members and said that the application had been referred to the Committee due to objection received from Berkhamsted Town Council.

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

Vote:

For: 11                        Against: 0                    Abstained: 1        

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

Condition(s) and Reason(s):

 1.        The development hereby permitted shall begin 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans/documents:

            103-01

            104-01

            203-01

            204-01

            302-01

            401-01 A

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

 3.        The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match the existing building in terms of size, colour and texture.

            Reason:  To make sure that the appearance of the building is suitable and that it contributes to the character of the area in accordance with Policies CS11 and CS12 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2013).

That the following appeals were noted:

A.    LODGED

B.    DISMISSED

C.    ALLOWED

D.    WITHDRAWN