Agenda and draft minutes

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 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 R Sutton.

Councillor Bateman substituted on behalf on 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 C Wyatt-Lowe declared a personal interest in this item as the ward councillor and that she called in the application on behalf of residents. Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe reserved her right to speak and vote thereon.

T Rennie introduced the report as the relevant case officer.

Members discussed the application at length with particular emphasis on parking and how residents would distinguish between parking for the new development and parking for existing residents.

The planning officers advised that the parking provided for existing residents will be painted red so it is clear to all who can park there. However, there would be no formal restrictions in place and the spaces will be available on a first come, first serve basis every day.

Members also questioned the low occupancy rate currently in the existing garages. Councillor Tindall stated that of the 28 garages, only 3 are occupied.

Planning officers stated that the garages are poorly maintained and were built in the 1970s so are quite small for modern car standards.

Matthew Letten spoke in support for this application and stated that his client was trying to strike the balance between redeveloping the site and easing the parking problems experienced in Burns Drive. This development will also address the need for starter homes in the borough.

Ian Golton and Gary Thomas spoke in objection to this application.

The officer’s recommendation to grant the application fell due to lack of a proposer and a seconder.

It was proposed by Councillor Birnie and seconded by Councillor Whitman to defer this application.

Vote:

For: 13, Against: 0, Abstained: 1

Resolved:

DEFERRED to allow for further discussions regarding parking provision and parking allocation to take place.

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe declared a personal interest in this item as the ward councillor and that she called in the application on behalf of residents. Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe reserved her right to speak and vote thereon.

T Rennie introduced the report as the relevant case officer.

Members discussed the application at length with particular emphasis on parking.

Matthew Letten spoke in support of this application.

Megan Bagshaw and Gary Thomas spoke in objection to this application.

The officer’s recommendation to grant the application fell due to a lack of a proposer and a seconder.

It was proposed by Councillor Birnie and seconded by Councillor Whitman to defer this application.

Vote:

For: 13, Against: 0, Abstained: 1

Resolved:

DEFERRED to allow for further discussions regarding parking provision and parking allocation to take place.

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe left the room at 8.06pm and took no part in the discussion or voting of the next two items.

P Stanley introduced the report on behalf of the relevant case officer. The application is before the committee due to the contrary views of Kings Langley Parish Council.

Councillor Anderson in his role as Dacorum Borough Councillor addressed the meeting objecting to the application.

Local residents Steven Clark and Mrs Bunzil also spoke in objection to this application.

Members questioned where the liability would lie if the tree or wall hurt somebody and the Council had refused this application. Dacorum Borough Council must give permission to make the tree safe due to Tree Preservation Order on it. The replacement tree species can still be decided.

Councillor Birnie said he was not convinced that the only way to cure this problem was to demolish the tree and was unsure that the applicant’s had explored all options available.

P Stanley highlighted that the tree was only semi-mature and had the potential to cause even more damage.

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

Vote:

For: 3, Against: 8, Abstained: 3

Resolved:

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

Insufficient information has been provided to justify the removal of the preserved Ash Tree on arboricultural grounds. In particular, further information is required in respect of the implementation of alternative engineering measures that would allow the damaged wall to be repaired and the TPO tree retained. The Ash tree is considered to be an important specimen in this part of the Kings Langley conservation area and therefore its loss would be significantly detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.Consequently the proposal to fell the Ash tree without full justification is contrary to saved Policy 99 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011, Policy CS12(d) of the Dacorum Core Strategy (September 2013), as well as national advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Item 5.03 considered the listed status of the application. As application 4/02578/15/FUL was refused on the grounds of exploring other options for the future of the tree, listed status cannot be refused on the grounds of the tree.

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

Vote:

For: 2, Against: 9, Abstained: 2

It was then proposed by Councillor Birnie and seconded by Councillor Matthews to defer the application.

Vote:

For: 12, Against: 0, Abstained: 1

Resolved:

DEFERRED in light of decision on planning application 4/02578/15/FUL

Councillor Riddick declared a personal interest in this item as he is a resident of Box Lane. Councillor Riddick reserved his right to speak and vote thereon.

The item was introduced by J Reid on behalf of the relevant case officer. This application has been called before the committee by the Director of Planning and Regeneration due to public interest of development on Green Belt land.

Jonathon Plant and Judith Livesey spoke in support of this application on behalf of the applicant and highlighted that there would be no increase in the building footprint from the current dwelling to the new development.

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

Voting:

For: 10, Against: 2, Abstained: 2

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Councillor Matthews declared a personal interest as the Director of the applicant’s company is known to him and therefore took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

T Rennie introduced the item on behalf of the relevant case officer. She advised that the application was before the committee due to contrary views of Berkhamsted Town Council.

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

Vote:

For: 9, Against: 1, Abstained: 3

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

P Stanley introduced the item on behalf of the relevant case officer. He advised that this application was before the committee due to the contrary views of Berkhamsted Town Council.

Alain Oregioni spoke in support of this application.

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

Vote:

For: 11, Against: 1, Abstained: 1

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

P Stanley introduced the item on behalf of the relevant case officer. It was referred to the committee because the applicant is an employee of Dacorum Borough Council.

It was proposed by Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe and seconded by Councillor Matthews 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.    Lodged

2.    Forthcoming inquiries

3.    Dismissed

4.    Allowed

To consider passing a resolution in the following terms: 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 items 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 these items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information relating to: Item 8.

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