The committee will take items in the following order:

1.      All items where people wish to speak and have registered with Democratic Services.

2.      Any remaining items the committee agrees can be determined without further debate.

3.      Those applications which the committee wishes to discuss in detail.

Apologies were received from Councillor Smith.

Councillor Martins informed the committee that he was known to the applicant of minute number 13, but had not discussed the application with them.  

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2023 to be submitted and signed.

The minutes from the meeting on 5 September 2023 were approved and signed.

The Development Management Lead delivered her team’s report. 

The Chair thanked the officer and invited Ian Oldfield, local resident, to speak against the application.

Ian Oldfield introduced himself and stated he was there to represent the local residents.  He stated that there were 55 objections, in addition to a professional assessment from Chartered Planners Bell Cornwall, which judged the development as not meeting the required standard.  He continued to say that the pack had many errors, that it was non-compliant and that its construction would negatively affect the local residents.  He highlighted difficulties in access to the bins, refuse bin areas, and highlighted issues with access for the emergency services.  Mr Oldfield believed that Hertfordshire Fire Service had not been given the correct information.  In addition to this, he highlighted issues with on street parking.  Mr Oldfield finished by stating that the aesthetics were grim and unappealing, while the report was full of factual inaccuracies and non-compliance.

The Chair thanked Mr Oldfield and asked the Development Management Lead to comment on two of the points; waste disposal and access for fire appliances.

The Development Management Lead responded that the original bin store plan had been shown to contain two large industrial wheelie bins; the plans had been amended to show normal residential bins in the store and an amended door.  It was felt this was a more appropriate bin type.  She indicated that the store itself had not been changed.  In relation to the bins, the transport impact had to be considered and if it were likely, they would end up on the road or pavement causing a blockage. It had been deemed that this was unlikely to happen.  In respect of the access road, she stated that the issues raised in relation to fire safety only applied to developments over 80 metres in height and therefore were not applicable in this case. Despite that, highways and the fire service had been consulted and had stated that fire vehicles could fit through the access. Furthermore, she stated that time considerations for emergency access could not be considered under this application.

The Chair thanked the Development Management Lead and invited Alex Richards to speak in favour of the application.

Alex Richards stated the applicant had engaged with council officers and outlined the pre-qualifying criteria that had been considered.  He pointed out that the site was suitable for being car-free and no objections from highways had been raised.  The applicant considered the design to be sensitive and stated it would be constructed of high-quality materials that would stand the test of time and would enhance the overall image of the blocks. A detailed day/sun light survey had been completed which stated that there would not be an issue.  He continued that construction management had been a key consideration and it was recognised that this would need to be completed within three years.  He finished by stating that the development would deliver new housing in a sustainable location and that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The Principal Planning Officer delivered their report to the committee.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and invited Jeff Solomons, local resident, to speak against the application.

Mr Solomons stated that he could only present facts and not go in to legal jargon. He advised that he was a resident of Crosfield Court where most of the residents were in their 80s or 90s with a few youngers ones in their 70s.  He continued that the application had been turned down previously and not much had changed.  Issues included the loss of daylight, complete blocking of sunlight and overlooking of bedrooms.  He stated that the building bordered the pavement.  Mr Solomons commented that elderly people needed sunlight for their vitamin D.  He went on to say that, another concern would be car parking, residents, and visitors using Crosfield Court’s car park due to the lack of parking in the development.  The road was very busy; there was a fire station, Tesco and a rapid action ambulance station nearby.  He said that it was only a matter of time before there was a major accident on this stretch of road.  He also raised issues around the lack of provision for affordable housing, and commented on the fact that water allowance would be reduced. He also stated that it was already a high crime area and believed this would increase.  Finally, he stated that there had been no increase in infrastructure and would reduce the value of their properties even further. 

The Chair thanked Mr Solomons and noted a couple of points in relation to the day/sun light reports stating it was a major issue and had been covered well by the officer. He invited the officer to cover the points relating to infrastructure and car parking.

The Principal Planning Officer stated that parking would be an issue for the management of Crosfield Court.  He went on to say that, if the application had been viewed favourably they would be required to pay a local services levy.

The Chair thanked the officer and invited Mark Doohan to speak in favour of the application.

Mr Doohan handed out an information pack. He introduced himself and stated the applicant had taken on-board the comments from a previous meeting, making various changes especially to the size and massing of the design.  The application had been through the normal consultation processes with no objections apart from that of highways.  The applicant had hoped to work with officers but had not had any engagement with them.  The building that was currently on the site did not offer anything to the local area and backed directly on to Crosfield Court, which would not change.  He highlighted that the existing building could simply be converted under permitted development rights, but that the applicant would rather develop a high-quality new building.  He highlighted the changes from the previous development detailed in the pack. 

The Chair thanked Mark Doohan and invited the committee to comment.

Several members of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.