I thought itd given there okay right we’ll start this meeting of the Planning and Development Committee welcome members officers and visitors for them for the meeting some of whom may well be speaking start with apologies for absence and Declarations of Interest we have apologies from councelor Ashley Ren
And uh councelor Booth is a substitute uh apologies from councelor Mitchell don’t think we have a substitute nominated for councelor Mitchell and councelor Wells sent her apologies and councelor mcra is U substituting I think councilor mcra and boo might as well be come on come on to
The Committees they seem to be subing at most meetings so um we’ll see uh do we have any Declarations of interest if not um we have the minutes of the meeting of the 9th of January ask or agreement that they can be signed as a correct record you happy with that
Thank you well turn to our first main item which is an old friend coming back third go that’s the cine bar in Old stevenage in the High Street um which was deferred for the second time uh at the last meeting um and I hope we will
Be able to make a decision uh tonight because um I think if we defer it any longer we’ll be in trouble with our statutory obligations to deal with um applications within a specified time uh um so I will be asking the the officer to give an introduction to the meeting to the
Application I’ll then ask um Mr Russell lyard is Mr lyard here um if he wants to oh you want to speak and Mr Veil right you’re in your place are you going first tonight is that yeah h I don’t really mind but since you’re in your place you
Might as well okay but we’ll hear um first from the planning officer giving an introduction okay thank you chair okay so this application is as said this is uh coming back from a deferral at the December committee so the application um is for the change of use of the parking Bays to
The side of cinear um to construct an outdoor seating area um just so this is the um the site location so we’ the parking spaces in question are in Bell Lane um the application was deferred previously um because councilors had concerns about the works that were going
Um proposed to the front of the site um we’ve now received this amended plan which shows that the works at the front have now been completely removed from the application and it is just the works to the side um that are now coming forward um so I’ll just quickly run
Through the photos the same photos that we had last time um just to sort of show where the area is so this is the area that’s no longer included so this is the the parking area to the front and just some photos down the side um the M tree moved their car park
Ex exit onto pet Road uh this drop curb um will be removed um and made good so that a parking space will actually be reinstated in this place so while the application effectively seeks the removal of four spaces it’s only a net loss of three because there will be one
New space gained when that drop curb is reinstated as a normal curb so and these are just some photos that were provided um by local businesses so just back to you chair and we’ll hand over to speakers hi thank you very much yes as you say I’m the chair of the business
Subcommittee of Ste Oldtown business and Community Community Partnership uh we did put in a a uh opposition or to the first application uh which was extensively based on the loss of parking uh there is a great deal happening which I’m sure everybody’s aware of in the Oldtown and curently we
Feel that consideration needs to be given to the Oldtown environment the economy of the Oldtown environment includes traffic traffic management pedestrian access and signage economy includes voice for the Oldtown businesses who are important to the High Street considering the new town development which needs to be done in
Conjunction with the bar’s plans for the uh New Town development uh footfall and how to encourage that attract most importantly attracting people into the Oldtown Central to the High Street is the forthcoming proposals from the hars County Council these could be wide ranging and affect trainers from Lost
Parking and until we have those details these proposals and any change that could impact upon the roads and parking we consider should be deferred I appreciate what you said earlier about uh uh needing to reach a conclusion with this matter uh now fortunately HCC are a little behind with their proposed uh
Publication of their plans which makes our representation a little difficult uh but it does appear that there is going to be a significant loss of parking and uh representing the businesses in the High Street that is considered quite a serious disadvantage and uh so the position our position this evening is to
Oppose the loss of any parking and particularly The Bays referred to thank you thank you and thank you for your previty you’re well within the the time thank you um right it’s um over to you Mr Leonard if you’d like to come down and you also have three
Minutes uh good evening as you may recall my name is Russell lonard and on behalf of the wellestablished venue known as cabar I appreciate the opportunity to briefly say a few words about the amended scheme firstly i’ would like to compliment the planning officer on producing excellent reports
For each three presentations in a very clear and comprehensive way in response to the second reason for for deferral of the application during the December committee meeting an amended proposed Street plan has been prepared and submitted under drawing 45709 revision C this plan indicates the change to the proposal which removes the
Front foot path buildout and leaves the parking arrangement to the east of cinear as currently exist as requested by the members of the committee also a further note has been included to emphasize that the existing redundant drop crossover adjacent to the West End of The Proposal along Bell Lane
Is being reinstated with race curbs as part of the proposed highways work and as a result shall create a new car parking space it is important to note that the council’s engineering department as the local parking authority remains supportive of the proposal and halfer County Council as the highway Authority have no objections
To the removal of the works to the front of the premises in addition there have been no concerns or objections to the original version of the scheme from either the aforementioned consules nor the council’s listed building and conservation advisors beams or Environmental Health in these different times I
Believe the hospitality sector plays a very important role throughout the High Street to enhance the vibrancy and vitality to the benefit of all other businesses in the vicinity I feel the proposal provides a splendid opportunity to create a welllike service that generates increased local activity and improves the overall experience of the High
Street I kindly ask the committee members to support the professional balanced advice conveyed by the planning team and accept their recommendations to Grant planning permission thank you very much for listening thank you very much and thanks also for being uh concise and keeping well within
The the time okay Linda if you’d like to take us through the rest of the report recommendations thank you thank you chair okay so at the last meeting um it was resolved to defer um for some amended plans um and that was to remove the The Works to the front which would
Um remove one of the parking spaces in that area at the front which um sort of serves a number of local businesses the chemists tesos Cardis um so amended plans were received and they were sent to Harts County Council and they came back to say that they had no objections
To the removal of that work um as you just heard from Mr linard the the plans were also um made sure they were annotated to to show that the drop curb at the back was um going to be stopped up up so that that created the extra
Space so that then there is only the the loss of three parking spaces um as we heard at previous committees the the act of the actual um the license for the the tables and chairs that’s um to be done with under the the Licensing Laws so what you’re here to consider this
Evening is just the engineering works for raising up of the the highway to the same level as the public footpath uh say hars County Council raise no objections and the council’s engineering department raise no objections and the council’s Heritage advisor beams um raise no objections um in principle to to The Works being
Done um so we would recommend um that the application is approved subject to the conditions in the report I’d just like to note that the conditions in the report were not fully updated So the plan numbers um in condition um so in condition one it it still
References the B revision instead of the C revision so that needs to be updated um and condition four mentions the built out area to the to the Eastern Frontage which is the works at the front and also mentions the B revision so um we would just update those to reflect
The correct plan numbers but um it’s our recommendation that the application is approved thank you for another concise introduction uh any questions comments councelor Booth very briefly chair I don’t think my voice will hold up for very long anyway um on page 37 the fourth reason um there’s a statement to ensure the
Development has an adequate appearance should it not also reference the fact that the development is in a Conservation Area thank you um I mean we could amend the the reason to say exceptional appearance in a Conservation Area yeah thank you chair and we discussed this in such great
Detail when it was was here a few weeks ago um and Lindo explained fully the situation I am still really uncomfortable with the fact that we’re handing over County Council land to uh an independent business having said that we’ve had all those arguments and this application has
Addressed the points that it was the reasons that it was deferred and therefore I can see no real way of opposing this even though I’m still uncomfortable and unhappy about it so it’s a comment rather than a question but that’s my feel that’s your comment councilor la
Sure you’re not the only one who feels similarly uh any other comments questions yes thank you chair um this is obviously for the S use of cinear do they um will they be paying sort of annually or is there any sort of fee that they’re going to be charged for
The for the use of the land through you chair um I believe that would all be done through the um if there was any fees to pay it would be through the license of occupying the land with the the tables and chairs but the actual building up of the highway um
Doesn’t incur any any fees or anything for that as a as an ongoing payment it would just be the the annual license agreement that they would need to use the land so is that um Incorporated in their sort of licence for the use of the actual cinear itself there that’s all up
Rolled into one they would need to seek a premise license variation um and it would that that would go through the the council’s licensing committees so there’s no actual sort of direct fee that they would need to pay for the use of that Land Is it okay sorry um so it would be
For licensing committee to to look at to to license the the space there is a a small fee for that um but there’s not an annual recurring license for that license there’s not an annual fee for it there there’s an administration fee it’s a centrally prescribed fee or in
The same way that there’s planning fees there a licensing fee associated with it there’s not a a profit charge or something like that if that’s yeah thank you chair I would like to recall the two um lady from the community the elderly lady appeared at the last meetings and they
Were concerned about the disabled parking they were the regular user of the Oldtown High Street and they um mentioned that U losing these four spaces will impact uh their um shopping habit and you know the parking um the way they have to look for parking they
Have to go to elsewhere to park uh which is not possible for the elderly residents so um and also my colleague councelor NZ Chri has mentioned that as well if is there any possibility that there will be from the um you know the um parking Baye would there be any um
More sort of um disabled parking will be you know um be available for by losing that four of the spaces has it been am that I just want to know I would like to know thank you the spaces in question are not disabled spaces so there’s no requirement to
Provide disabled spaces in replacement of those lost spaces um the provision of of any disabled spaces would be down to um the highways Authority um if they wanted to to put any on on their land as as owners of the land um but no there’s there’s no requirement as part of this
Application because those spaces are not disabled spaces say I mean it’s a shame that we haven’t got the wider pit as one of the represent Representatives tonight has mentioned about the wi HCC input into the old old town as a whole but um that said it seems to me we’re drifting off
The point here again this is a planning issue and we seem to be drifting into the competency of the licensing committee we’re here to determine whether this adjustment to the road is you know in keeping with what is a competency of a planning committee as far as I can see it
Is like maybe I’m jumping to you know to a conclusion but it just since we’re drifting the debate is drifting off into the competenc of other committees around licensing and things like that I think your conclusion is correct um somebody else indicated before um oh
Yes thank you very much um just a quick question uh we have mentioned or people have mentioned about the long awaited plan for the old town if this if the Old Town plan from the hars County Council comes through and it suggests something different for this space will the the
HCC plan override what we’re doing today please through you chair I have actually had meetings with the County Council there uh in terms of the lead officer is dealing with the proposals uh for the High Street uh the and he is fully aware of these proposals and what I have seen
Planwise uh will not affect what’s been shown here tonight they’re fully aware of that turning to the point about concerns around disabled parking Bays which we raised that is something we have asked the County Council to consider as part of their proposals I understand from the plans we’ve seen
They are looking to put in more definitive disabled Bays along the High Street but I can’t say any more than that because obviously that’s will be down to them to formally publicize that when the plans go out but I have had those discussions with County and back
To your question no those their proposal should not be affected by this thank you chair I just want to come back with a question over the licensing thing Z your answer to Chris but but before I do uh I I can just say that there was a meeting in this very
Building on Monday where the County Council presented the High Street proposals to officers and the portfolio holder so there is a plan in place it’s not a final plan because there is an obligation to go out to consultation again so one can’t be sure how it will
Finish up but there is a plan that was acceptable to most people including the business uh partnership who had seen the plan and and thought that it it was fair and reasonable I believe um so they are fairly Advanced with this there will be a consultation
That will be opened and closed before we go into perda for the elections in May so from then on there will be a fairly permanent plan in place thank you my question was we were talking about in answer to to uh Council how’s question about charges it was that that’s an
Issue for the licensing committee the licensing committee is part of this Council they don’t own the road the County Council H the road so how can the borrow Council licensing committee decide whether there will be a charge for use of what was a road it it depends on what what license
They apply for and for what space so if they apply for uh alcohol license or pavement license to be used on the public Highway that is most of those bits within the gift of the Council of the borrow Council um and much in the same way with planning and with other
Regulatory bits when we talk about it um permitting it licensing it doesn’t automatically mean that they can do that if they don’t have control or agreement over the land so this requires the County Council as Highway authority to not object to allow it in that way so
It’s not that one in granting the permission if the County Council as landowner wanted to say no you know I think in the training we’ve always talked about the Bucking and Palace example of you can get permission on something it doesn’t mean that you own it or you have the authority to do
It and we move to a vote you have the recommendation before you those in favor please show those against on against any of any obstain coun yes okay one against one exstension thank you very much I think that’s you’ve done tonight thanks very Much well move to item four uh land to the west of Litton way um and that is um that is you okay if like to introduce the good evening thank you this application is uh has been submitted as a variation to the previously um approved scheme um really
The main reason behind this is to remove the uncraft car parking uh for for all seven blocks for fire safety reasons um there is a the applicant has advised there is an increasingly increased risk of fire from electric vehicles and charging equipment and this is exacerbated through being parked within
Undercroft parking which requires um the installation of particular fire suppression systems to meet current building regulations and there is a Associated cost with those of fire suppression systems which the applicant has advised they are expensive and they have advised given the viability challenges within the area the costs of developing the site already
Significant and therefore they have taken the decision to apply to remove the undercroft parking within all seven blocks and to replace them with additional Flats just go through this is the green on the um plan is my annotation the circles highlight the areas where the main physical changes are you will have seen
There’s been a an addendum sheet this afternoon just updating some of the figures that came through early this morning um it doesn’t change the total proposed parking however just to go through it um The Proposal is to remove 49 enclosed parking spaces within all seven blocks where the green circles are
Is the where the previous vehicle access was to serve that parking those circles show that closed off and either the provision of internal cycle storage or flats so I was just trying to show you where abouts in the site the physical changes are as a result of this request to remove the
Parking as a result of remove the parking there’d be 16 additional Flats spread across the four blocks Sorry Seven blocks oh yeah apologies apologies there you go that should be clearer um the application also proposes to alter the layouts of anill facilities like bike and Bin stores commun communal entrances plant and storage
Areas and there will be 14 external car parking spaces created which again are cited within the green circles basically they’ve been put in the place of where the vehicle access used to be there is also an amendment to the affordable housing mix in Block seven so out of the
16 additional flats that are being proposed on the ground floor four of them will be affordable which equates to 25% of the additional provision so I’m just going to go through all ground floors of all seven blocks just showing you the the Amendments so block one here is involve the removal of
Six car parking spaces with the addition of Two Flats and reconfigured cycle store block two involve the removal of eight parking spaces an additional three Flats at ground floor a removal of vehicle access and two additional car parking spaces outside and again reconfigured cycle parking block three contrary to the
Addendum it’s the removal says the addendum references block five with regards to eight spaces it should have referenced block three so block three is removal of eight car parking spaces two ground floor Flats as was previously proved additional Two Flats removal of the vehicle access two additional car parking spaces and again reconfigured
Cycle Park parking block four is shows a reconfigured gym and cycle store and also a removal of an ex external cycle to store which has allowed the addition of four external surface car parking spaces block five is removing eight spaces with three knee Flats remove the vehicle access two additional parking spaces reconfigured
Cycle parking and the ground floor Garden Terrace in the Eastern elevation has been re relocated to the South and therefore no longer sits on Highway land uh block six remove six parking spaces two additional Flats no vehicle access and two additional parking spaces with new reconfig reconfigured cycle
Parking and finally block seven is the affordable housing Block it’s removing 12 car parking spaces to provide four additional Flats no vehicle access two additional car parking spaces on the east side of the building and one space on the west reconfigured cycle store and an amended affordable housing mix to provide 16
One-bedroom Flats they’re previously approved for 26 so there’s a reduction in one bedroom flats and an increase in two bedroom Flats that’s now four 40 and it was previously 16 the the applicant has advised the current need talking to registered providers is for larger Flats um rather than than smaller ones hence
The change in mix this um I’m going to talk about car parking now um so despite what the addendum says I just want you to focus on two facts so the approved planning application had 233 parking spaces this planning application is proposing 198 now this site is in in an
Accessibility Zone which allows for between 25% and 50% of the maximum parking provision now the approved scheme granted permission for um parking with within that range I think report it was 30 something per I think from my report this latest application by removing the undercroft parking has reduced that parking percentage down to
26% which still Falls within the range allowed within the planning parking provision SPD but much towards the lower end however it is still policy compliant the application is also accompanied by request for deed of variation to the section 106 agreement this is to allow uh the 16
Flats to be to mitigate the uh primary need for primary education so there will be a financial contribution towards the Town Center Primary School just like the original scheme but there will be an additional payment take into account the additional flat that is currently being negotiated and the other Amendment to
The section 106 will be for the increased affordable housing and the change to the mix so that that’s why a deed of variation application is also subject to determination this evening which is corresponds with this planning application and that’s all for me thank you chair thank you for that um councelor Lawrence
Thank you chair it’s amazing what you can do with figures isn’t it so this is this is such a massive change to this scheme and whatever the rules and regulations say if if this scheme had been presented in this format at the time I would not have been
One that contributed to its approval you all know because I’ve voiced it so many times my feeling on on inadequate parking whatever the rules say inadequate parking is a problem and it’s going to plague this town and surrounding areas in the future and there have been a lot
Of counselors that regret we’ve approved a lot of these schemes I’m also fed up completely fed up with big schemes like this coming back for changes because people that submitted it knew there would be a lot of controversy over the parking here uh if they submitted this scheme to
Begin with so let’s put something in and get it through and then come back afterwards and change it we’re losing another 35 spaces but it’s more than that isn’t it we’ve got 16 more Apartments if you allow one and a half Cars per apartment that’s another 24 parking spaces we should have so
We’re talking about a loss really of 59 car parking spaces not just 35 it totally transformed the scheme and it’s in my view completely wrong that we should even be considering such a big variation at this stage I’m sorry for for voicing no you’re entitled to express
Your view that’s what we’re what we’re here for um chair if I could just clarify points and just if I could clarify two points so um you may recall that it was originally refused by planning committee and it was allowed on appeal um so that’s sort of some of the
The history to it um obviously you’ll see from report in terms of we wouldn’t normally be seeking one for one for new car parking spaces so that’s why we think it the net amount is in out in the report I completely agree gr I’m absolutely insens about this I just think this
You know this was a plan as you say that was refused by the committee many years ago before when I was sitting on it but what really annoys me about this is that you’re doing away with the the underground the Croft parking you’re squeezing in 16 Flats to my mind it’s
Just money money money let’s squeeze in some more flats for some more money with inadequate parking and where’s all these cars going to go well I’ll tell you where they’re going to go they’re going to go up to Watson ro kby road all around Fairview Road and
It’s going to be a knock on effect we’ve seen it in other areas I’m absolutely I’m I’m I’m with you gr I’m so angry that these developers think that they can come in and change the rules and I welcome another four affordable Flats affordable is quite a subjective word I
Think because it’s affordable to whom you know they’re not social they’re affordable so I’m absolutely insense that this has come in and I think for them to come in and say 16 more Flats they’re going to be squeezed in somewhere and there’s going to be impacting around all the neighborhood
Here about this and to my mind it’s just another waking up more money for the developers I’m really really cross really cross about it thank you very much um I’m I’m a little bit interested in the reason why this is has come to pass I I haven’t read much about electric car charging
I’d like to know where this information where it’s a fire hazard has come from is it real is it something that’s been made up or what can be done about it because it’s obviously going to affect an awful lot of um fure development if we can’t have electric car charging in blocks of
Plats as can you clarify that for me please yes for you chair the information the applicant has provided refers to um recent car park fires such as locen airport and the Liverpool Echo Arena and um the concern has has just continued to grow in the industry around the fire
Risk from enclosed parking apparently so an insurance broker have highlighted that as well as the increased fire risk from electric vehicles and charging equipment modern vehicles also prevent present a greater fire risk and I think in against the backdrop of the grenfell um Tower fire the building regulations are getting stricter and
Stricter and the costs involved of making undercroft parking safer are higher and this is just through the information the applicant has provided as to the the reasoning behind the submission of the application and there quoting citing viability reasons in terms of that it’s just too expensive for them thank you chair
Um if this did did get rejected tonight what would be the consequences does it go to appeal and then they win anyway or through you chair so for this plan permission this application which is a variation to um one that’s already under construction and yes if it was if it was
Refused it would be up to the applicant whether they appeal or not then it would go to appeal and it’ll be up to the inspector to make a decision on it um they do obviously in a slight different position to most applications that we see where there is a default previous
Permission that they are constructing at the moment um so it’s not that if you said no to this there’ll be no development no development on the site because you’ll be aware they’re already underway with the permission that they have bangt and are implementing thank you I agree
Absolutely with what gra and Claire said you know I’m really feel our hands are tied Etc yes I do realize I’ve been to lean airport I’ve seen the the sort of mess there and there that but but um there’s also the othered thing they’re talking about sort of giving us uh more
Um affordable housing but further down there you know that you still got that viability you know we we could come up against this again and we will not get maybe what they promised because we’ve all come up against that before so it still bothers me you know about all of this again thank
You just picking up the conversation about electric vehicles is it the view of the planning community and building regulations that there is a need to review how these spaces are constructed in the future is that what I’m hearing from officers tonight so the um what the case officer has shared is what the
Applicant submitted um and it’s sort of their narrative and explanation for why the applications come about in terms of regulations yes it is likely that there’ll be increased um building control um requirements um for that I think Luton it was as my understanding is um and I might be wrong it wasn’t
Confirmed that it was an electric vehicle it was a I think a petrol or diesel car but there’s more of a a concern about residential accommodation above enclosed car Parks particularly when there is elements of charging so then therefore it requires greater regulation in the form of ability control regulation
Ultimately extra cost at this stage which is the number of yeah um obviously I know we’ve briefly touched on it but has the applicant um provided any fire safety like checks or anything to say what what fire safety checks they’ve done cuz I know you mentioned about expenses and everything but obviously we
Do need to consider is this is this development going to be safe for our residents um so um I’m not sure apologies I can’t remember the exact date that it came before um I think we’ve had two previous iterations of a revised scheme on this site which were all about adapting the
Building to be more fire safe post grandell so they’ve had lots of fire safety advice on it and the scheme has evolved um there was marginal increases and changes to um size of cores and um some of the buildings itself so it has been reviewed and it it is a um it will
Obviously need fire safety sign up at the end as well as the current plant can I just ask a question if the Croft the car park Croft under Croft whatever is being scrapped because of fire safety why do the charging points have to go under there why can’t they doesn’t
Be normal car parking and the charging points be on the land surely that would solve this position for you chair my my understanding through what the applicant has said it’s not having un charging in underc parking it’s the cost of the fire suppression systems that are required by building regulations should a fire
Breakout through whatever for whatever reason and it’s the cost of the things they have to do to comply with the building regulations are too much and they are therefore have relooked at how to provide parking on the site and and obviously it’s what you have before you the additional Flats in its place
Otherwise if it was removed there would just be a void there um um you have the recommendation before you can ask for those in favor please sh all the recommendation those against sorry ask four again again could you show four again two those against that is
Lost um we need to consider the grounds which which are going to be cited um could I just then clarify some what I’ve heard from Members um in terms of it’s predominantly around the the loss of the of the parking spaces so the reduction in the parking spaces and
That potential impact are that being displaced elsewhere in the local area particularly I’ll double check the the roads that you said but I think it’s to the North and the West way you think that use yeah so you got Watson kby Road and then you got Fairview Road beyond
That and then you got sort of towards the High Street end as well I just think the impact of the surrounding area we’ve seen it in St Nicholas where they haven’t had enough parking and now it’s gone into St Nicholas and into into martinw and the impact is enormous
People need to think about this with these developments now okay um if you’re happy that that’s the the single reason for refusal um that’s what we we’ll we’ll cons um we’ll clarify that in an email um to all to make sure that we’ve captured it correctly that’s the
Principle yeah I think I think it’s absolutely right is about the number of parking spaces and the impact as clear is but also the relationship between the number of dwellings and car parking spaces because if we’re putting 16 more dwelling at on that that should increase the number not decrease the yeah so
It’ll probably be a single um reason for refusal but we’ll make the distinction that it’s Amplified by the yeah thank you for that we’ll move on to item five which is uh you again that’s I think y this is the former ping green Playing Fields thank you chair this is a
Consultation from harer County Council as land owner and applicant for the partial use of the site for a day Center to replace that that’s C Laden Road and of gunwood Road the red line area shows the application site boundary and the blue line indicates the rest of the land
That’s owned by har County Council so we are not determining you are not determining this application this evening you’re simply advising whether you agree with officer recommendation to raise no objection uh to the proposal okay the southern half of the site as you’ll see is the proposed location for the day service facility
The northern part is being retained for future development the site is allocated in the local plan for housing for approximately 42 dwellings we have had pre-application discussions with the county Council where an indicative housing scheme has been shown to the north this was for Extra Care housing uh that would be
Subject to a future application um but it has been confirmed that in principle the site could still support the amount of housing that the local plan roughly allocates it for should it be extra care or Market when when the time comes um the day Center would be accessed and and obviously like
The northern part of the site would be accessed from the north haywoods close and just by way of background this is the former playing field of pin Green School the housing to the east Jubilee court and and the and the housing was where the school buildings used to be
And this land is the the old playing field the school closed in 2005 so it’s been out out of use for for just under 20 years now and um just going to show you some photos if you don’t don’t know the site now um it’s basically you can
See um photos taken from londsdale Road looking um Southeast you can see how there’s a difference in land levels from Londale Road the land Rises slightly um up towards um the housing um just served off where where the school buildings used to be you can see it’s mainly
Grass uh this uh photo is aort of northern half of the site which is where the which has got the blue line around it at the moment which is not subject to the application you can see there there’s some small cops of trees this is of looking from long again
Looking east across the site towards the hayward’s close housing and then this is looking South uh towards the where the day Center would be would go and again you can appreciate how the this the land slopes gently towards lale Road and note the prevalence of boundary trees um around
The edges mainly obviously this was a former playing field so the middle bit is is still grasp oops sorry right the um this is the site location sorry the proposed site plan so um let me get the highlighter so this is um I’m just trying to do the
Laser po never mind apologies um there we go um this is obviously the the day Center building it’s going to be single story with a flat roof with a central Skylight the actual roof itself is going to be green roof there’s going to be a small private Garden providing amenity space for users
Of facility and it is going to be accessed through a Central Access Road along the eastern boundary of the site this road would also serve any future development on the Northern parcel apologies the orientation of the plan uh has got the north south is east west so
Apologies about that um there’s going to be 24 parking spaces including um I it’s four disabled spaces okay so I’ve just copied in a the the tree plan um which shows the majority of trees on site would be retained um the dashed red circles are those that would
Be removed the mainly is like small small copses um in the southern boundary and Northern boundary the tree survey identifies them as um low category C or or more sort of shrug shrug light type bushes um you can see the majority of trees would be retained however in in my
Report we are recommending that County Council seek to uh a three for one replacement Tre provision um thought for those that are being failed going to show you some pictures now of what it sorry just just waiting for my laptop to reconnect and I’ll show you some cgis of
What it’s going to look like so I’m sorry my computer has lost connection um I had got some I don’t know whether uh James is yeah thank you okay thank you James um so I’m just going show you some CGI images of what it’s going to look like you can see it’s
Mainly brick single story that’s the picture of the sort of main main entrance this one please and that’s looking that’s that’s from londsdale Road looking North that’s what it would look like from from Londale Road I think by making it single story they’ve tried to reduce the visual impact and and bulk of
It uh this is a sort of aerial view you can see the the flat roof and the the rear garden and the parking and yeah that just gives you a general idea of the overall design but um obviously we’re just tonight it’s uh just determining whether this is uh
Raised no objection to it County Council as planning Authority would would be determining this application but I’ve presented it as a committee report to aid aid that that review of it and it’s officers view that it’s whilst it’s not policy compliant from a land use point
Of view this is the housing site um it wouldn’t preclude the northern part meeting that um housing Target of approximately 40 to 50 dwellings it would also provide a uh a good replacement facility for the one that’s currently at Laden Road which is at the
End of its life not not fit for purpose poorly located so we feel that the planning benefits are are quite clear and officer recommendation is to is to raise no objection andk thank you chair thank you just to reiterate the point this is a County Council property therefore the County Council are the
Planning Authority we are like in the same sort of position as parish and town councils who are consulted as local Representatives so we just asked if we have any objections but we don’t take the decision any comments questions looks fairly straightforward to me but about the playing field um
Mitigations would they be attached to the proposals that if the developments goes ahead the the planning the playing field would be mitigated there will be a playing field is it thanks for you ch um of officer’s view on that is that the playing field has been out of use for
Nearly 20 years and therefore um there would be no requirement to mitigate its loss because it has not been used for so long it is not suitable as a playing field now it’s not allocated as a playing field the County Council have consulted sport England but sport England are not
A statutary consult te which means that um should the County Council decide to ignore their request for to mitigate the loss of the playing field then the application does not need to be um sent to the secret Secretary of State as a a departure so um in short it’s officers
View that due to the length of time it’s been out of use uh we would not be if we were the ones determining the application we wouldn’t be seeking mitigation for it loss I’m going to do trees I am um you mentioned there about the 3 to1 Ru is
The is the County Council Bound by that I mean our local policy but how does that work so they’re not they’re not they have to my understanding is when the County Council determines applications within like this they they are bound by our local plan we have specifically requested that
Three trees are planted for every one one that’s lost they that that that will be made known to them that the report that I’ve written will be sent off and so that that that they should comply with the local plan policies and listen to our listen to our requests for
Specific conditions which is we have specified in the report yes thank you chair um what was this particular uh parcel of land originally allocated for in the in the plan I just feel that when this is grass field that was originally a playing field for the school we say it’s
Not in use but I bet if you went down there over a weekend you’d find lots of children playing on it I sometimes think we’re a bit too casual in uh our building on green spaces I would like to see somebody checking to see if it
Really is out of use there may be a lot of kids playing football on it just a point CH so we move to a vote those in favor of the recommendation please sh any that looks unanimous to me thank you thank you very much right thank you if you want to
Depart yes okay thank you very much your work tonight um we come to um our last well our last planning application um which is an enforcement item that’s you James can I ask is um Mr Scott Godwin yeah I understand you wish to speak on this matter okay if You’ like
To come down to um the microphone and the back now what what I’m going to do is I’ll ask the planning officer to introduce the item uh when he’s done his introduction you’ll have three minutes up to 3 minutes you don’t have to take
It all to to let us know your views and then we’ll go back to the planning officer and then members will discuss what’s been said and um take it decision okay so James if you like to start off thank you chair so this is an enforcement case uh for the unauthorized
Construction of a single story rear extension at number 20 Marketplace uh so this is seen from the back of east from Eastgate so I just quickly Show members some photographs of the structure itself so this is a view looking at the existing structure so you can see the
Black van um and you’ll just see behind where my cursor is here this is the timber structure in question which is the subject to the enforcement investigation uh again this is a view of the extension um which has been constructed to the rear number 20 and this is the roof of the extension
Itself um as you can see it takes up the majority of the service yard um so there’s no because there’s no planning permission for this extension and no other applications has come forward um and that we’re seeking a recommendation to seek enforcement action for its re removal thank you
Chair Mr Godwin you have three minutes if you press the okay thank you thank you so much thank you everyone yeah and basically when actually um moving to that place um 20 Marketplace I because to my left you can see in the in the video to my left and to my right
Everyone they all have extension in both places so I thought then that was reason why I also conru an extension because the reason why I did that um there’s a cold room that’s inside so I did extension to prevent the rain from coming to the cold room so it wouldn’t
Go spoil go bad and then when I the councel came it says oh no you need a permission permit to be able to construct um an extension so I said okay that’s fine I am ready to cooperate with them what are the procedures and what are the things require of me I’m ready
To do all of that because I felt um everyone else in that Ro all the all the shops in that place they don’t have extension so that’s why I also constructed one so I pleading please the Cod Room taking that extension off is really going to affect the Cod Room and
Then the rain is going to come on it and it costs so much money to construct a Cod Room at the back of the building so I’m really really um ready to cooperate with the council and do whatever they want me to do so that we can go forward
From there thank you very much sir um thank you for that um I’ll go back to the chra now I don’t know if you can tell us if you think there is any room for negotiation and uh arriving up with some kind of solution to this without requiring order but we’ll we’ll
Have to vote on that at the end anyway thank you chair so from our perspective the the structure itself is a Timber construction um it’s got no foundations Etc uh it is from if I was just to take this from a purely planning perspective so obviously you can see the materials
Which was used not matching to those which have been constructed in the area so it’s generally constructed of brick uh most extensions we would expect to see be constructed of brick or similar materials to those used in the construction of the building itself because of being a conservation area we
Want to make sure that extensions to these premises are sympathetic uh and the terminology is defined by case law is preserve and or enhance um due to the materials used which OB you can see from the from the report was issued is an MDF or timber frame structure uh with basically a
Perspect roof so that’s we call in congr or out of character because it’s materials which are not sympathetic in terms of matching to those using the construction of the original building um because it’s been a conservation area as well and the materials used we feel that what’s been
Built it doesn’t neither preserve nor enhance or protect the historic character of the conservation area so um If This Were to let’s say coming for a planning application it’s highly unlikely us as officers would support it um as it is because of the harm I’ve mentioned just now um we have discussed
This with our heritage advisor they basically support our position that such a structure would cause harm um so the only way we feel to resolve the matter um is this extension would have to be removed um in terms of the principle of an extension now we’re not as a officers
Are not saying he cannot have an extension but that extension would have to be much more sympathetic in terms of materials so brick construct Etc moving on from a planning perspective uh one also has to consider building regulations side of it as well now such a structure as this is highly
Un likely to get building regulations approval uh firstly because of it’s the nature it’s been built out of but secondly um as Mr Godwin’s pointed out and if you’ve seen in the committee report it’s used as a cold Grom so you have electric Etc in there um you’ll see
From the photographs there is because of the nature of the structure being Timber there’s always risk of water leaking into the building so with electrics there you always you’ve got a risk of fire um and also of its nature as well you get cold and damp getting in there
As well um which could potentially cause issu for Mr Goblin’s products he’s mentioned there as well um and there’s no Foundation either so it’s basically just been built on the concrete slab which is used for which would have been the service yard so even if uh we were
To accept the structure as it is it’s highly un likely building regulations would support it either uh in terms of its form so they even they would probably ask for it to be cut down because it’s not a safe structure or meet their regulations in terms of something going
Forward if Mr Godwin wanted to come in with something which is much more sympathetic uh so a brick construct as they said we’d probably be more open of the principle of that obviously it would have to be assess it own merits uh and considered accordingly in terms of uh Mr
Godin’s point about other extensions within the a which have taken place along other properties of marketplace at Eastgate Etc uh that would be subject to further enforcement investigation obviously we have not received formal complaints until this point in time so if Mr Godwin says can you I I have concerns about
These other extensions obviously as a council we have a statutary duty to investigate those uh and determine whether or not there’s a breach and if there is a breach and we consider the same as the situation here is they’re not acceptable again we’ll be bringing the same F matters back to committee to
Say these structures are also not acceptable and we’d be seeking action thank you chair chair if I could just add in terms of the recommendation specifically in 6.1 um we’re saying that it’s within 6 months of um any enforcement notice so that wouldn’t preclude the applicant coming in with a new application as
James has described and given the parameters of what might be acceptable um to the council but it does give us a clear end date of when the structure must come down any comments questions from Rob there something 4.4.1 um around that there’s Vio Foods multi International involved in this and
There’s also lease income of Brook Le stevenage limited how does the legal jurisdiction around that stuff work out or is that pertinent for you chair so yeah in terms of enforcement we have to to enforce against all parties who have an interest in the land so that’s leas holders and
The freeold owner so this is a lease hold property so we’d also not only be going against uh company who you know has the lease and that would also be going against the company who owns owns the property as well so we have to enforce against all those who have an
Interest which is why it’s been worded it isn’t important um my view is that I don’t think we have much option but to support the officer’s recommendation principle but we we could actually add an agenda expressing the desire that officers do engage with Mr Godwin in Seeking a a means of
Finding an acceptable solution to this problem would that be I can move that as a an addendum perhaps rather than an amendment and I put that to the vote then as as with with the addendum those in favor please sh it seems to be agreed right okay well it’s up to you Mr
Godwin thank you very much for coming along uh you have an opportunity to you said you wanted to talk to council officers they they are open to talking with you okay thank you thank you so much much appreciated thank you so much right thank you Mr CH we do have um couple more
Items um information report delegated decisions there’s the usual list there and another information report on appeals and the state of them and we note that we have actually won an appeal which is that’s good new um that concludes part one business um there is no part two business urgent or otherwise so that
Uh means we don’t have to move the recommendation in itle 10 that concludes the meeting thank you very much um and members this evening thank you oh you think they will appeal