Agenda and minutes

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2016 were confirmed by the Members present and were then signed by the Chairman.

An addendum to the agenda was circulated before the meeting.  A copy of the addendum can be found on the DBC website on the following link:

https://democracy.dacorum.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=159&MId=536

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies were received from Councillors D Collins, Maddern, Whitman and C Wyatt-Lowe

Councillor Bateman substituted on behalf of Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe.

Councillor P Hearn substituted on behalf of Councillor Maddern.

Councillor Guest chaired the meeting in the absence of Councillor D Collins

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 Guest 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 Guest reminded the members and the public about the rules regarding public participation.

Councillor Guest announced that she would change the order of the applications being considered.  The applications are minuted in the order they were considered.

Proposal: The application seeks planning permission for erection of three new detached dwellings, together with new access, landscaping and car parking. The existing stable buildings are to be demolished and all three new dwellings are to be accessed independently from the main house via an existing site entrance off Astrope Lane. The proposed dwellings are two storey which take the form of L shaped barn house with modern additions. The houses are laid out to create an entrance courtyard.

J Reid introduced the report and said it had been brought to committee due to the contrary views of the Parish Council.

Fiona Wilson (applicant) spoke on behalf of Paul Thomas (architect) and spoke in support of the application.

Peter Myrants and Alan Higgins spoke in objection to the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Tindall and seconded by Councillor Birnie to defer this application to await technical information from Thames Water regarding the sewerage issues.

Vote

For: 10                         Against: 1                    Abstained: 1

Resolved

That the application be DEFERRED to await further details from Thames Water.

Proposal: This amended scheme proposes the construction of 5 x detached 4-bed dwellings on land to the rear of No's 27 - 33 Grove Road, within the rear gardens areas of these properties. This sees a reduction of 1 dwelling when compared to the previous scheme 4/00069/16/FUL which was refused at DCC. The proposed dwellings would be accessed via a new access created between No.'s 27 and 29 Grove Road. The access would be created through the demolition of No. 29's side garage, in order to allow space for the new access road, which would utilise the existing crossover onto Grove Road. Although the proposed houses are two storey, each would contain habitable accommodation in the roofspace. The proposed scheme includes associated access, turning and manoeuvring facilities, along with the provision of private amenity space and hard and soft landscaping.

R Herbert introduced the report. He said he recommended a change to the officer’s recommendation to delegate to the Group Manager with a view to approval to allow for the expiry of the re-consultation period for the additional landscaping plans submitted.

Simon Booth and Nigel Ozier from Braybeech Homes spoke in support of this application.

Lee Filby and Steve Jackson spoke in objection to this application.

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

Vote

For: 2              Against: 5                 Abstained: 5

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

Vote

For: 5               Against: 1                    Abstained: 6

Resolved

That planning permission be REFUSED due to the following reasons:

The proposed backland development would represent an overdevelopment of the site and would cause significant harm to the character of the area. The proposals are therefore contrary to Core Strategy policies CS11 and CS12, Tring Character Area (TCA) 13 of the Saved Local Plan, and the NPPF

Proposal: The proposed demolition of No.1 Langley Hill and the amalgamation of its land with that at no. 32 is to enable the construction of a very substantial brick and handmade clay tiled gable and hipped roof tiled inverted 2.5 storey (with basement) ‘L’ shaped rear extension to the approved care home building and the provision of a new GP doctors surgery. The care home would provide 21 new bedrooms in addition to the approved 36.

The development will be accommodated along the whole of the site's northern (adjoining Langley Hill Close) and western sides. It will feature a linking two storey component within the site's north west corner providing a communal glazed lounge room/ conservatory and associated garden, closest to no. 7 Langley Hill Close.

The development's central communal/ shared courtyard will be linked to the existing Langley Hill access. This will provide vehicular turning and access to the parking serving the surgery and the care home. There will be 4 parking spaces for the surgery with 15 for the care home.

N Gibbs introduced the report and said it had been referred to committee due to the contrary views of Kings Langley Parish Council. N Gibbs drew members’ attention to the late representations in the addendum and bedrooms 37, 39 and 41 will now have other uses.

Corina Ciobanu spoke in support of the application.

Phil Cheetham and Jeff Folkins spoke in objection to the application.

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

Vote

For: 8               Against: 0                    Abstained: 3

Resolved

That planning permission be REFUSED due to the following reasons:

The proposed surgery will be served by inadequate off street parking which demonstrates that the scheme represents an overdevelopment of the site. The identified significant shortfall of parking will result in parking overspill from the surgery placing constant increased daily pressures upon the very busy pubic car parks in Kings Langley especially that opposite the application site. Langley Hill and the High Street will also be subject to additional on street parking pressures. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy CS12 (Quality of Design) of the Dacorum Core Strategy wherein on each site new development should comply with a range of design criteria, including (b) which expects the provision of sufficient parking.  With less available customer parking to serve Kings Langley Village Local Centre - due to the proposal’s shortfall in parking - there will be a negative impact upon the Kings Langley Local Centre’s businesses customer/ operator base where the Dacorum Core Strategy Kings Langley Place Strategy supports the maintenance of the shopping and service role of the village centre.

Article 35 Statement

Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

This application was deferred prior to the meeting at the request of the applicant.

Proposal: The application seeks outlined planning consent for the demolition of the existing detached dwelling and construction of one apartment block containing 6 flats. Whilst this scheme has been submitted in outline form the majority of required development details have been submitted at this outline stage.

R Marber introduced the report and said it had come to committee due to the contrary views of Northchurch Parish Council.

David White spoke in objection to the application on behalf of 16 households in the surrounding area.

It was proposed by Councillor Fisher and seconded by Councillor Imarni that the application be granted in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote

For: 4               Against: 5                    Abstained: 2

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

Vote

For: 5               Against: 2                    Abstained: 4

Resolved:

That planning permission be REFUSED due to the following reasons:

1)    The proposed development would result in an unacceptable bulk and scale across the site, this would result in a prominent form of development and be out of character with the immediate and wider area contrary to saved policies 10, 18, 21, 111, appendices 3 of the Dacorum Local Plan (1991), policies CS1, CS4, CS10, CS11 and CS12 of the Core Strategy (2013), the NPPF and NPPG.

2)    The proposed provision of 8 basement parking spaces would result in insufficient off street parking provision for the six proposed units. This shortfall would result in pressure for on street parking contrary to saved appendix 5 of the Dacorum Local Plan (1991), policies CS8 and CS12 of the Core Strategy (2013) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

Proposal: Planning permission is sought for a single-storey detached outbuilding located within the rear garden of the application site. The outbuilding would be used as a garage and storage of bicycles.

The outbuilding would have dimensions of 3.05m wide by 5.5m deep. It would feature a flat roof less than 3m high.

I Keen introduced the report to the committee and said it was before the committee due to the contrary views of Nash Mills Parish Council and had been called-in at the request of Councillor Maddern. I Keen said the fallback position would mean the applicant could construct a hardstanding under permitted development rights.

Parish Councillor Lisa Bayley spoke in objection to this application.

It was proposed by Councillor Imarni and Councillor Clark to grant this application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote

For: 10             Against: 0                    Abstained: 1

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Proposal: The application seeks permission for the construction of a single storey building, replacing the existing bungalow which is already partly demolished under the above mentioned approval. The proposal would afford five units for businesses and, with regards to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), the primary use would be Use Class B1(c) (light industrial). There may also be other ancillary uses, such as B1(a) (offices), B1(b) (research and developments of products and processes) and B8 (storage).     

The new building would be constructed in an ‘L-shape’, with a maximum height of approximately 6m and a total gross internal floor area of approximately 536m². The building would be constructed of vertical grey cladding and brickwork similar to that found at the adjacent MBC under a shallow grey clad pitched roof.

M Heron introduced the report to members and said that it was before the committee as Dacorum Borough Council were the land owners. He said that condition 11 would be removed as the information was duplicated in other conditions.

Howard and Gloria Russell spoke in objection to this application.

Members wanted a condition that addressed the security lighting.

It was proposed by Councillor Birnie and seconded by Councillor Clark that the application be granted in line with the officer’s recommendation and subject to the additional conditions.

Vote

For: 10             Against: 0                    Abstained: 1

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Proposal: The application seeks permissionfor the construction of a single storey rear extension, two storey side extension and loft conversion. The proposed alterations would increase the dwelling from a four bed into a six bed property.

The proposal is an amended scheme of the previous refused application ref: 4/00544/15/FHA. The amendments to the scheme are as follows:

(i)  The carport has been removed; and

(ii)  The three rear dormers have been omitted.

R Marber introduced the item and had been brought to committee due to the contrary views of Chipperfield Parish Committee.

James Holmes spoke in support on behalf of the applicants.

John Dickenson and Michael Clements spoke in objection to this application.

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

Vote

For: 7               Against: 0                    Abstained: 4

Resolved:

That planning permission be REFUSED subject to the following reasons:

The cumulative impact of the proposed extensions by reason of their bulk and scale would constitute overdevelopment of the site and result in a dominating form of development when viewed from the wider area. This would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Chipperfield conservation area and designated small village located in the Green Belt contrary to policies CS6, CS11, CS12 and CS27 of the Core Strategy (2013), saved appendix 7 and policy 120 of the Local Plan (1991) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

Proposal: This application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing conservatory and construction of a single storey rear extension.

R Marber introduced the report; this application has been brought to committee as the applicant is a member of staff at Dacorum Borough Council.

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

Vote

For: 10             Against: 0                    Abstained: 1

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Proposal: The application seeks permission for a loft conversion including front facing Velux roof lights and rear facing dormer.

I Keen introduced the application. It was before the committee due to contrary views of Berkhamsted Town Council.

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

Vote

For: 9               Against: 0                    Abstained: 2

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

The following appeals were noted:

1. Lodged
2. Forthcoming inquires
3. Forthcoming hearings
4. Dismissed
5. Allowed