Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ellie Plater.

Councillor Claire Parris declared an interest in relation to Item 9 and 10 due to her being a Ward Councillor in St Nicholas.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ellie Plater.

Councillor Claire Parris declared an interest in relation to Item 9 and 10 due to her being a Ward Councillor in St Nicholas.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 July 2023 and 8 August 2023.

It was RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 18 July 2023 and 8 August 2023 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

It was RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 18 July 2023 and 8 August 2023 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

The Assistant Director (Planning & Regulatory) gave an update on a question raised at the recent Council meeting in relation to consultation on small land sales. He noted that the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Performance, Councillor Simon Speller was also in attendance. He confirmed with Members whether they had concerns surrounding the amount of people being consulted or the time at which Councillors were engaged with. Councillors agreed that it was important to engage with local Members and residents as Ward Councillors were not always aware when pieces of land were being sold, and residents or neighbours weren’t aware until it happened.

To consider the erection of 1no. one bedroom and 1no. two bedroom dwelling houses and provision of publicly accessible open space.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/0006/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the applicant having first entered into a S106 legal agreement and the conditions and reasons set out in the report.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 23/00066/FP seeking the erection of one 1-bed and one 2-bed dwelling houses and provision of publicly accessible open space.

The Senior Planning Officer presented photos of the site location and site layout. The application sought to build two houses with the open space being retained a publicly accessible privately owned open space. There would be a one-bed house at the top of the site and a two-bed house at the bottom. The trees displaced would be replanted as part of the landscape strategy. There would also be hedgerow replaced and extended to enclose the site but would allow site access.

The Chair introduced Mr Paul Raymond, an objector, to address the Committee.

Mr Raymond, a resident of Conifer Walk, expressed issues with the application. Firstly, it was his view that the development would have a negative effect on the wildlife and residents. The small area of land was used regularly with children playing and people walking their dogs. Established conifer trees were also being removed. Secondly, as a neighbour to the proposed development, the boundary of his home was 1m away from the new house. He believed there would be a significant loss of light into his home.

The Chair thanked Mr Raymond for his contribution to the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members that the application did not meet policy H05 as it was not previously developed or an urban site, however, it met policy H09 as it was supplying smaller dwellings. The development would contribute to the housing supply and would have an economic benefit during construction. She reminded Members that the land was privately owned and was publicly accessible private land, not public open space. Conditions could be imposed in terms of the access to the open space, that it must still be publicly accessible and who would conduct landscaping and maintenance, but they could not force the developer to do this.

Conifer Walk had no uniformity in terms of size, design, or materials, so the properties would be constructed in line with the elevation of the other properties. The one-bed would have a steep garden, but this was similar to other properties in the area due to the topography. She noted there would be some overlooking but this would not be different to semi-detached or terraced buildings. The separation distances all meet or exceed the minimum requirements set out in the design guide, and there would be no side windows. The Hertfordshire Highways Authority had agreed the proposal was acceptable.

There would be new trees planted and the applicant had agreed a financial contribution for a 3-for-1 tree planting and a 10% biodiversity net gain contribution. There had been suggestions for the trees to be planted in Chells Park. A more detailed design strategy had been asked for and this was determined under condition 17.

The Chair asked a question in relation to comments made by Hertfordshire Police. The Senior Planning Officer advised that the comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To consider a Section 73 application to permission reference: 21/00529/FPM – amendments to condition 1 (approved plans), condition 2 (timing), condition 3 (construction management plan), condition 5 (Drainage Strategy), condition 6 (drainage management and maintenance), condition 7 (Travel Planning), condition 8 (hydrants), condition 9 (acoustic fence), condition 12 (materials), condition 14 (external lighting), condition 15 (access), condition 16 (service yards and car park), condition 17 (bin storage), condition 18 (electric vehicle charging), condition 20 (landscape drawings), condition 22 (hard surfacing) and conditions 27 & 28 (Unexpected Contamination).

It was RESOLVED: That the application 22/00838/FPM be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report, with any amendments to the conditions listed in this report be delegated to the Assistant Director of Planning and Regulation.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 22/00838/FPM seeking a Section 73 application to permission reference: 21/00529/FPM – amendments to condition 1 (approved plans), condition 2 (timing), condition 3 (construction management plan), condition 5 (drainage strategy), condition 6 (drainage management and maintenance), condition 7 (travel planning), condition 8 (hydrants), condition 9 (acoustic fence), condition 12 (materials), condition 14 (external lighting), condition 15 (access), condition 16 (service yards and car park), condition 17 (bin storage), condition 18 (electric vehicle charging), condition 20 (landscaping drawings), condition 22 (hard surfacing) and conditions 27 & 28 (unexpected contamination).

The Principal Planning Officer informed Members that the original application for three warehouse buildings with access, parking, and landscaping was granted planning permission in 2022 and construction was currently underway. Due to the site proximity to the Cygnet Hospital, it was established through the original planning permission that an acoustic fence along the boundary was needed.

The approved layout could not be built as the original flood risk assessment did not consider the acoustic fence would have on floodwater as an impermeable barrier across the flood plain. The established ground conditions were also not suitable for ground infiltration and so changes needed to be made to the scheme to reduce the flood risk. There were also some other minor changes. These amendments included:

·         Maintain the 3-metre easement between the brook and the development site.

·         Change the design of the acoustic fence to have 1m gaps at the base to allow flood water through.

·         Some minor amendments to the site levels but the buildings remained unchanged.

·         Unit C being moved slightly to allow for the easement.

·         Remove the trees under the pylon.

·         1.2m high acoustic fence along the spine road

The Committee was informed that there were also temporary changes to the approved access. Some parking had to be relocated and there was a reduction in the width of the cycleway. The approved shared signalised access with the housing site opposite was not ready to be built as the housing is coming forward at a slower timescale than the employment site. This had impacted the application site, so they submitted a temporary access proposal for 18 months to 2 years where the southern access was widened as a priority T junction with the provision of a pedestrian refuge.

The Chair asked a question in relation to the approved access. The Principal Planning Officer advised that the approved access was linked with the permanent access with the housing development to the north. This had planning permission but was currently going through the Section 278 process.

Some Members asked why the flood risk was reassessed and the issue was only discovered after building started. The Principal Planning Officer advised that the original assessment took into account the acoustic fence but didn’t assess what a continuous permanent barrier would do and where the water would go. The initial flood risk was agreed as recommended. The original drainage strategy relied on the site being able to infiltrate water, however following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider the Variation of condition number 2 (approved plans) attached to planning permission reference number 23/00239/FPM to alter the position of the stair and lifts cores to ensure maximum travel distance for means of escape are improved.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00655/FPM be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 23/00655/FPM seeking a variation of condition number 2 (approved plans) attaching to planning permission reference number 23/00239/FPM to alter the position of the stair and lift cores to ensure maximum travel distance for means of escape are improved.

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that this application was an amendment for an approved scheme to comply with new fire safety regulations and was similar to a previous application for the same site that came to the Committee. The new regulations stated that buildings over 18m in height needed to have two stair and lift cores, which affected blocks 2, 5, and 7 in this development. There were no other changes other than the additional stair and lift cores.

The additional stair and lift cores couldn’t be within the original space to keep the size of the flats the same so the blocks had to be extended and altered slightly but were similar to what had already been approved. Blocks 2 and 5 remained the same in length and height, but the depth of the buildings had increased but over 1m. Block 7 remained the same in depth and height, but the length had increase to 240m.

A Member asked whether the size of the flats would increase. It was advised that the stair and lift cores were just being added, there were no changes to the flat sizes.

Another Member asked why it was only three blocks and whether this could be done to all the blocks. It was advised that because they were over 18m high they were required by the new safety laws to include this. There was a similar amendment in May which added the stair and lift cores into the other blocks.

A Member asked whether there were solar panels and what solar gains meant. The Assistant Director (Planning & Regulatory) advised that they were unsure if solar panels were being added, but it was not a requirement if they didn’t have it in their application before. Passive solar gain was the heat of the building from the sun or outside temperatures.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00655/FPM be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report.

Conditions:

1.    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of the appeal decision APP/K1935/W/20/3255692 whereby planning permission was granted on 15th July 2022.

2.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 16-019 D – 050 C01; ICON-2-PS-200 – Site Plan; 502686-IWD-XX-XX-DR-A-2320_P1 A3 - Proposed Site Elevations ICON-PS-1-100 - Proposed GA Plan - Level 00 – RevB; ICON-PS- 1-101 - Proposed GA Plan - Level 01, 03,05 – RevB; ICON-PS-1-102 - Proposed GA Plan - Level 02,04 – RevB; ICON-PS-1-103 - Proposed GA Plan - Level 06,08,10 – RevB; ICONPS- 1-104 - Proposed GA Plan - Level 07,09 – RevB; ICON-PS-1-105 - Proposed GA Plan - Level 11  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider the external alterations and insertion of mezzanine floorspace (ref. 23/00393/FPM) and the Variation of Section 106 agreement dated 4 December 2014 (ref. 23/00350/S106).

It was RESOLVED: That the applications 23/00393/FPM and 23/00350/S106 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report and the amended wording of Condition 3 set out in the Addendum Report, and that the modification of Obligation 5 of the Third Schedule of Section 106 Agreement dated 4 December 2014, as set out in Paragraph 9.1 of the report, be agreed.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 23/00393/FPM and 23/00350/S106 seeking external alterations and insertion of a mezzanine floorspace and the variation of S106 agreement dated 4 December 2014.

The Principal Planning Officer informed Members that Sports Direct was looking to locate their main store and their fashion store USC from the town centre. As Sports Direct sells bulky goods and sports items, they could occupy the space without planning permission, however as they also want to include USC, this was not in line with the original bulky goods restriction for the retail park, so it came to Committee for permission. They were also seeking planning permission to increase the sales area with a new mezzanine floor which included minor changes to the glazing and cladding. These were separate applications that they were taking together but voting on separately. The applicant had also submitted a retail impact assessment which deemed that there was no impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre, there were no other suitable sites in the town centre, and it complied with the relevant retail policies.

A Member expressed concerns that this was a loss of trade for the town centre. It was advised that Sports Direct could occupy the unit without needing to vary the terms of the retail park. They had also completed a retail impact assessment and it wouldn’t lead to an adverse impact on the town centre.

It was RESOLVED: That the applications 23/00393/FPM and 23/00350/S106 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report and the amended wording of Condition 3 set out in the Addendum Report, and that the modification of Obligation 5 of the Third Schedule of Section 106 Agreement dated 4 December 2014, as set out in Paragraph 9.1 of the report, be agreed.

Conditions:

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2264-U7B-L01; 2264-U7B-X01; 2264-U7B-P01-A; 2264-U7B-P02-A; 2264-U7B-P03-A; 2264-U7B-X02-A

2.    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

3.    The range of goods to be sold from the development shall be confined to retail warehousing of comparison goods to exclude expressly the sale of all foodstuffs for consumption off the premises, clothes and footwear (other than specifically for the playing of sport), or other fashion goods. Notwithstanding, Unit 7B hereby permitted may also be used for the same of clothing and footwear from up to a maximum sales area of 446m² (net) and the sale of athleisure, and other clothing and footwear typically associated with a sports retailer. The extended range of goods may only be sold on the basis the floorspace is operated as a single unit.

4.    Unit 7B hereby permitted, including any mezzanine floor, shall only operate as one unit with internal connections maintained, as indicated on drawing no. 2264-U7B-P01-A Proposed Ground Floor Plan.

5.    The mezzanine floorspace hereby permitted shall at no time be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider a single storey front extension and construction of a driveway with associated dropped kerb.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00528/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 23/00528/FPH seeking a single storey front extension and construction of a driveway with associated dropped kerb.

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members that the applicant was related to a member of staff, so the application had to come to the Committee. There was a small hardstand to the front, which was similar to other properties in the area. The size was within acceptable limits and the materials would be a match to the property. The application would alleviate on street parking. HCC raised no concerns. 

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00528/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report.

Conditions:

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2333-P001; 2333-P002A;

2.    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

3.    The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the front extension hereby permitted shall match the materials used in the construction of the original dwelling to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

4.    The proposed hardstanding shall be made of a porous material, or provision shall be made to direct surface water run-off water from the hardstanding to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse.

To consider a Certificate of Lawfulness for (Existing Development) for the enlargement and conversion of a garage into an annexe.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00621/CLED be GRANTED a certificate of lawfulness subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 23/00621/CLED seeking a Certificate of Lawfulness for (existing development) for the enlargement and conversion of a garage into an annexe.

The Assistant Director (Planning & Regulatory) informed Members that Items 8, 9 and 10 were different to normal planning applications as they were not assessed on planning policies but were certificates of lawfulness and looked at whether they were within the criteria of the Town and Country Planning Act General Permitted Development Order (2015), (as amended).

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members that the application was a garage conversion which was slightly extended to the front. The applicant was also an employee of the Council. A bay window replaced the garage which had been turned into a bedroom. This was done in 2009.

Under Class A they had a right to undertake certain conversions, which garage conversions fell under, so they could convert it without planning permission. However, they needed planning permission for the extension. In accordance with planning legislation, after 4 years of no action a development could be deemed as acceptable and lawful due to the passage of time.

Some Members asked whether there would be more developments like this and why they don’t just seek retrospective planning permission. It was advised that SBC didn’t have the capacity to look at whether people have completed developments without planning permission, it was only looked at when people inform SBC. Building control issued a certificate, which are separate to the Council, and SBC were not notified. As it had been over 4 years a Certificate of Lawfulness was the equivalent to retrospective planning permission.

Another Member asked why it came to the Committee now. It was advised that the applicant was selling their house and the solicitors wanted proof of the conversion. Due to the passage of time SBC could issue a Certificate of Lawfulness.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00621/CLED be GRANTED a certificate of lawfulness subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Conditions:

1.    On the balance of probabilities, the evidence that has been provided has demonstrated that the enlargement and conversion of the garage at No. 7 Dove Road occurred more than 4 years ago. Therefore, for the purposes of S.171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 it is considered that the enlargement and conversion of the garage is now lawful and exempt from enforcement action.

To consider the Certificate of Lawfulness for (Existing Use) for the use of the property as 6-bed House of Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4).

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00631/CLEU be DEFERRED for the following reasons:

·         To seek legal advice regarding the evidence submitted in relation to GDPR laws.

·         To investigate whether the property had an HMO licence.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 23/00631/CLEU seeking a Certificate of Lawfulness for (existing use) for the use of the property as a 6-bed House of Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4).

The Chair took Item 9 and Item 10 together, but Members voted separately.

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members that in 2015 the owner converted the house into a house of multiple occupancy (HMO) for up to 6 people. Permitted development rights allowed C3 developments to be converted into HMOs so at the time the owner did not need planning permission.

In 2020 an Article 4 direction was created to cover Stevenage Borough and removed permitted development rights to turn C3 properties into HMOs without planning permission. The applicant was seeking a Lawful Development Certificate to confirm that at the time of the creation of the HMO, planning permission was not required. They have submitted evidence to show they converted the property into an HMO before 2020. The Senior Planning Officer advised that Members could not be shown the evidence as it would breach GDPR laws.

There was a similar application which was taken to appeal, and SBC lost. If the conversion was done before the Article 4 then the Council must issue a lawful development certificate.

The Chair introduced Councillor Sandra Barr, Ward Councillor for St Nicholas, to address the Committee and speak in objection to both Item 9 and Item 10.

Cllr Barr acknowledged this was a formal decision on whether the existing properties proposed uses were lawful. These applications were unlike other planning applications as there were no consultations. A property must have a license to rent out a large HMO which was to 5 or more people who form one or more household and where some or all tenants share one bathroom and kitchen. These properties were once 4-bed homes and now had 7 bedrooms and a property of that size needed a lot of parking spaces in an already overcrowded cul-de-sac. If original planning permission was sought there would have been consultations and the concerns would have been met. She raised concerns of the rise of HMOs in St Nicholas and the shortage of larger, 4-bedroom family homes. She believed there should be further investigation into these properties.

The Chair thanked Cllr Barr for her contribution to the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer reminded Members that at the time the property was converted, the owner didn’t need planning permission so there was nothing the Council could do at the time. If they changed from C3 to C4 after 2020 they would need planning permission and it would have to be assessed. In terms of parking the requirement was 0.5 spaces per bedroom, not people. Ripon Road would require 3 spaces and York Road would require 4 spaces. Environmental Health would look at the number of occupants, not planners.

A Member asked why planning law couldn’t be applied retrospectively. It was advised that when the properties were converted there was nothing that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To consider a Certificate of lawfulness for use as a 7 bedroom HMO (Use Class Sui-Generis).

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00618/CLEU be DEFERRED for the following reasons:

·         To seek a formal opinion from the Borough Solicitor regarding the evidence submitted in relation to GDPR laws.

·         To investigate the evidence further, including in relation to the length of time the property had been used as an HMO.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 23/00618/CLEU seeking a Certificate of Lawfulness for (existing use) for the use of a property as a 7-bed House of Multiple Occupation (Use Class Sui-Generis).

The Principal Planning Officer informed Members that this application was for a large HMO and was slightly different from Item 9 as it was for more than 6 people and therefore was in a planning use class of its own. This application did not benefit from permitted rights and needed planning permission originally to become a large HMO. The applicant was seeking a lawful development certificate to determine if it had been operating as a large HMO for at least 10 or more consecutive years. Evidence had been submitted to prove it had been in use for more than 10 years which included:

·         A statement of truth from the owner.

·         A statement of truth from the builder who also handled the maintenance.

·         Tenancy agreements which dated back to 2011.

·         An HMO licence obtained in 2018.

The property was currently being used as a large house of multiple occupancy with 7 bedrooms. It was deemed that the evidence successfully demonstrated continuity in excess of 10 years and met the relevant tests. The Principal Planning Officer added that a certificate application for this property was refused earlier in the year due to a lack of evidence. The applicant had provided further evidence and on the basis of this additional evidence, it was considered to meet the test on the balance of probability.

The debate on this Item was considered with Item 9 above.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00618/CLEU be DEFERRED for the following reasons:

·         To seek a formal opinion from the Borough Solicitor regarding the evidence submitted in relation to GDPR laws.

·         To investigate the evidence further, including in relation to the length of time the property had been used as an HMO.

To note a report on decisions taken by the Assistant Director Planning and Regulatory in accordance with his delegated authority.

It was RESOLVED: That the Committee note the information report.

It was RESOLVED: That the Committee note the information report.

To note a report on Appeals and Called-in applications.

It was RESOLVED: That the Committee note the information report.

A Member asked for more information on an appeal lost due to an enforcement document being written incorrectly. The Assistant Director (Planning & Regulatory) advised that this application would have to come back but the enforcement document would have to be more specific. The Senior Planning Officer advised that the application was brought to the Committee asking for permission for an enforcement notice for a car port and it was insisted to replace the trees. The enforcement wasn’t correct for this, and the Committee could not ask for mitigation measure for things outside of the specific site. The wording of the enforcement notice was too ambiguous, and the appellant could not be legally sure what was being asked from him and so was deemed null and void.

Another Member asked for an update on 134 Marymead Drive. The Senior Planning Officer advised that this was an enforcement that the Development Manager was dealing with. A site visit had been completed on the 15^th August 2023 and they were waiting for the planning inspectorate to come back as to whether the enforcement notice was valid. The Assistant Director (Planning & Regulatory) advised that the legal challenge was successful in terms of the signage and environmental health legislation. There was also an injunction against him.

It was RESOLVED: That the Committee note the information report.

To consider any Part I Business accepted by the Chair as urgent.

There was none.

There was none.

To consider the following motions that:

1.    Under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in paragraphs 1-7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act as amended by Local Government (Access to information) (Variation) Order 2006.

2.    That Members consider the reasons for the following reports (if any)being in Part II and determine whether or not maintaining the exemption from disclosure of the information contained therein outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Not required.

Not required.

To consider any Part II Business accepted by the Chair as urgent.

There was none.

There was none.