Agenda and draft minutes

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 November 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 Guest, Councillor Whitman and Councillor Conway.

Councillor Mills substituted on behalf of Councillor Guest and Councillor Bateman substituted on behalf of Councillor Whitman.

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. 

The Committee considered applications for planning permission as set out below and reached the decisions therein.

Councillor Mills arrived at 7.04pm before the presentation of the item and was therefore able to take part in the discussion and voting thereon.

Councillor Tindall declared an interest on this application. Councillor Tindall declared that he had informal discussions with the applications and reserved his right to speak but not vote thereon.

C Gaunt clarified to the members that this land is currently owned by Dacorum Borough Council as there was previous confusion with regards to land ownership.

The item was introduced by J Reid as the relevant case officer and advised the committee that this application has come before the committee because the land is currently owned by Dacorum Borough Council. J Reid said that a previous scheme was proposed but was refused at the Development Control Committee earlier this year. There were three reasons for refusal which have now been rectified and deemed acceptable by the various agencies.

Mr C Watts spoke in support of this application on behalf of the Paper Mill Trust.

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

Vote

For – 8, Against – 0, Abstained – 4

Resolved:

1. That the application be DELEGATED to the Group Manager, Development Management and Planning with a view to approval subject to the expiry of the neighbour notification period and completion of a planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. That the following Heads of Terms for the planning obligation, or such other terms as the Committee may determine, be agreed:

            100% affordable housing provision and tenure

P Newton introduced the report on behalf of the relevant case officer. He stated that the application was before the committee due to the contrary views of Little Gaddesden Parish Council who had concerns over the design of the dwelling.

Mr C Higenbottam spoke in support of the application.

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

Vote

For – 11, Against – 1, Abstained – 1

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED as per the published report plus 2 additional conditions:-

• The existing frontage hedging and trees shall be protected during construction and shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: To accord with Policy CS12, CS24 and CS25 and to preserve the character and the beauty of the Chilterns AONB.

• The existing house shown dotted on Drawing D1468.2C shall be permanently removed from the site prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, in the interests of residential amenity and to avoid inappropriate development in the Rural Area.

Councillor Riddick declared a personal interest in this application. Councillor Riddick stated he had discussions with the applicant’s neighbour and would therefore not be taking part in the discussion or voting thereon.

B Curtain introduced the report on behalf of the relevant case officer. The application is referred to the Development Control Committee due to the contrary views of Bovingdon Parish Council as they feel this is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. B Curtain also stated that this application is asking for retrospective planning permission as the shed and gates have already been constructed.

Having there been no proposer to grant this application in line with the officer’s recommendation, it was proposed by Councillor Tindall and seconded by Councillor Birnie to defer this application.

Vote

For – 11, Against – 0, Abstained - 1

Resolved:

That the report be DEFERRED to provide further information regarding enforcement investigations, details of how the building is currently being used and details regarding the hardstanding/associated drainage and whether it falls within permitted development limits.

B Curtain introduced the report on behalf of the relevant case officer. It was brought to the committee’s attention that the Parish Council have not objected to the application and this was a misprint in the agenda. It has been referred to the committee as Dacorum Borough Council owns the land.

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:

B Curtain introduced the report on behalf of the relevant case officer. The application is before the committee as Dacorum Borough Council owns the land. B Curtain stated that the access would not be 24 hours if a change of use is granted.

It was proposed by Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe 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:

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe left the room at 8.16pm and did not return until 8.19pm so took no part in the discussion or voting of the next three items

B Curtain introduced the report as the relevant case officer. It was stated that the proposal allowed for a change in the shop front, giving the opportunity to improve it to a more traditional shop front in keeping with the surrounding area. It has been referred to the committee due to the contrary views of Markyate Parish Council who are concerned about the narrow pavement. B Curtain stated that Herts Highways have not objected to the proposals and suggested that the benefits outweigh the risks as Markyate does not have a 24 hour ATM.

Parish Councillor D Coasby spoke in objection to this application.

It was proposed by Councillor R Sutton to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation but this fell due to a lack of a seconder.

It was proposed by Councillor Mills and seconded by Councillor Ritchie that the officer’s recommendation be overturned and the application be refused.

Vote

For – 10, Against – 1, Abstained - 1

Resolved:

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

The installation of an ATM in the position shown will result in the obstruction of the narrow footpath when in operation which would be prejudicial to pedestrian safety and contrary to Policies CS8 and CS12 of the adopted Core Strategy

4/02596/15/ADV - PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF AN ATM AS A THROUGH GLASS INSTALLATION. GREEN ACRYLIC SIGN NON ILLUMINATED TO TOP OF ATM FASCIA WITH WHITE LETTERING ‘CASHZONE FREE CASH WITHDRAWALS’

99 HIGH STREET, MARKYATE, ST ALBANS, AL3 8JG

The committee were advised against deferring the application as this could run the possibility of appeal due to non-determination as this application is already over its deadline.

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

Vote

For – 8, Against – 1, Abstained – 3

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1.    This consent is granted for a period of five years commencing on

            the date of this notice.

            Reason:  To comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning

            (Control of Advertisements)  (England) Regulations 2007.

2.    No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

            Reason: To comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning

            (Control of Advertisements)  (England) Regulations 2007.

3.     No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to: -

            (a)        endanger persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome (civil or military);

            (b)       obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any

                         traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water

                         or air; or

            (c)        hinder the operation of any device used for the

                        purpose of security or surveillance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

1. Lodged
2. Forthcoming inquiries
3. Allowed

Councillor D Collins questioned that last sentence as it was incomplete in the agenda.

P Newton said that this should say “appellant’s claim for costs was dismissed”.

Full details are in the Part 2 minutes