MEMORANDUM 3 February 2009

To: Members of the Development From COUNTY SECRETARY’S

Control Committee DEPARTMENT

Chief Officers Ask for Adrian Service

Ext 25564

Minicom 6611

My Ref AS/

Your Ref ______

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

20 JANUARY 2009

MINUTES

ATTENDANCE

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

N E Agar, G R Churchard, D S Drury, B N W Hammond (Chairman), M D R Muir,

D A A Peek, E T Roach, E N Singam, W A Storey, J W A Usher (Vice - Chairman).

Also in Attendance

P V Goggins, A F Hunter, J M Pitman.

Upon consideration of the agenda for the Development Control Committee meeting on

20 January 2009, as circulated, copy annexed, action was taken or decisions were

reached on individual items as recorded below.

MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 December 2008 were approved as a correct record.

PUBLIC PETITIONS

No petitions to be presented to this meeting, on items not detailed on the agenda had

been received.

NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS

None notified.

MOTIONS

None notified.

1.  THREE RIVERS DISTRICT - APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED USE OF SITE FOR RECYCLING, RECOVERING AND MANAGEMENT OF WASTE METAL, ERECTION OF TWO BUILDINGS AND REPLACEMENT OF PERIMETER FENCING / GATES AT ASM RECYCLING, RAILWAY TERRACE, KINGS LANGLEY

[Officer contact : Felicity Hart Tel : 01992 556256]

Ms H Leherle on behalf of A Styles, a resident of Railway Terrace for over 28 years, made a presentation opposing the planning application.

P V Goggins read out a presentation on behalf of Kings Langley residents opposing the planning application.

Mr M Krantz, Agents on behalf of the applicant, made a presentation supporting the planning application.

Mr J Tidmarsh presented a petition containing 122 signatures of Kings Langley residents and spoke opposing the planning application.

Copies of photographs showing the site and adjoining roads supplied by the applicants [6 photos marked A to F] and residents [10 A3 sized photos plus 3 pages of hand size photos] were circulated at the meeting.

The Development Control Manager, County Development Unit, Environment Department advised of the typographical errors in paragraph 4.10 of the submitted report, in that the height of the main building was 6.8 metres to the eaves and

8.6 metres to the pitch of the roof rather than 7.8 metres to the pitch of the roof.

Also the information contained on the first plan after page 26 concerning the two certificates of lawfulness had been transposed. The upper marked area nearest to the Corporation Yard was covered by the Certificate issued in 1992 and should read CLEUD LA ref 8/763/92 and the lower marked area to the east of

Norman House and west of the water sluices covered by the certificate issued in 1994 should read CLEUD LA ref 94/0930/ 8CED.

In response to a question, the Development Control Manager advised that a survey of the land had been undertaken after the Environment Agency had raised concerns.

The survey had highlighted that some of the land on the site was probably contaminated and it was proposed to concrete over this part of the site.

He stated that the Environment Agency were keen for remediation works to be undertaken on the site.

In response to a question, the Development Control Manager stated that unsuccessful negotiations with the applicants over surrendering certificates of lawfulness and an acceptable level of vehicle movements had led officers to recommending refusal of the planning application now.

He stated that no special circumstances had been demonstrated by the applicant to support the proposed development to be undertaken in the green belt.

Mr M Krantz clarified on behalf of the applicant that he would be prepared to surrender the existing use rights if a reasonable level of vehicle movements could be agreed.

In response to a question, the Development Control Manager explained how noise assessments of sites were calculated taking into account extreme but rapid noise from trains and airplanes etc. which were averaged out on a hourly basis. He stated that current site operations were undertaken both outside and inside buildings and outside works such as unloading / loading skips use of the baler were excessively noisy and difficult to reduce and were a particular source of noise nuisance to local residents.

The local County Councillor for the Abbots Langley constituency advised that he opposed the application as it would lead to increased number of heavy goods vehicles using the roads near the site which he felt was already far too high, plus the all day noise nuisance from site activities to his constituents was unreasonable.

RESOLVED

That (a) for the reasons set out in the report, the Director of Environment be authorised to refuse planning permission for application ref 8/0839 08 at ASM Metal Recycling Centre, Railway Terrace, Kings Langley, Herts reasons to include :

i)  The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt for which no very special circumstances have been demonstrated that would override harm by reason of inappropriateness and other harm to the Green Belt. The proposed development is therefore contrary to advice set out in PPG2 Green Belts, Waste Local Plan policy 16 Green Belts and Three Rivers Local Plan policy GB1 Development within the Green Belt.

ii)  The proposal would result in an adverse effect on the local environment and the residential amenity of local residents due to noise (from both within the site and from vehicle movements associated with the use outside the site) that cannot be satisfactorily controlled by conditions. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Waste Local Plan Policies, WP40 Noise and WP43 Traffic.

iii)  The proposal would result in a significant and adverse impact on residential amenity due to numbers of heavy goods vehicles coming to and from the site. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Waste Local Plan Policy WP1 Sustainable Development, Policy WP43 Traffic, and Three Rivers Local Plan Policy T7 Highways and new development.

(b)  the Director of Environment be authorised to initiate any enforcement action necessary in order to comply with the two extant Certificates of Lawful Use.

2.  EAST HERTS DISTRICT - APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PLANNING CONSENT RELATING TO VEHICLE MOVEMENTS AT ANSTEY CHALK QUARRY, ANSTEY nr BUNTINGFORD

[Officer contact : Conor Guilfoyle Tel : 01992 588670]

Mrs M Kilby on behalf of Hormead Parish Council, made a presentation opposing the planning application.

Mr D Williamson on behalf of Braughing Parish Council made a presentation opposing the planning application.

The local County Councillor for the Braughing constituency presented a petition

containing 58 signatures of Hare Street residents opposing the planning application.

Copies of a photograph showing two lorries passing on the B1368 in Braughing were circulated at the meeting.

The Head of the County Development Unit, Environment Department advised that since the dispatch of the agenda, twelve additional letters of representation from Parish Councils and residents of villages whose roads were on the route to Anstey Quarry had been received. These additional letters received raised similar issues to those detailed in paragraph 5.6 of the submitted report and also referred to HGVs speeding through the villages ignoring 30mph speed limits, narrow footways and lack of traffic calming in affected villages exacerbating HGV impacts.

Barkway Parish Council have also raised objections to the proposal and both Barkway and Hormead Parish Councils had requested that the application be deferred until :-

·  correct, full and proper consultation with the public is carried out,

·  an impact study on the effects of increased noise, pollution and vibration on roadside properties is carried out,

·  full consultation takes place with current home owners affected by traffic vibration – in particular homeowners of listed building,

·  a full survey of the current road state is carried out, particularly in built up areas along the B1368 and its feeder roads,

·  Parish Councils were formally informed of this application.

The Head of the County Development Unit advised in accordance with statutory requirements, Anstey Parish Council as the local parish council, had been consulted on the application on 23 October 2008; 2 site notices were erected (one by the junction of the haul and C class road, and the other on Hare Street’s village notice board) and an advert was placed in the Hertfordshire Mercury. Subsequent to this, information relating to the application was sent to the Clerks of Hormead Parish, Braughing Parish and Buntingford Town Councils (the clerk to Buntingford town also clerks the Buckland and Chipping Parish Councils).

In response to the local County Councillor for the Braughing constituency’s question, whether Committee members had received a copy of Braughing Parish

Council’s Lorry Traffic Survey 2008 [conducted in 2004], in particular the local roads lorry movement statistics, the Committee Chairman advised that he and fellow Committee members had not seen this traffic survey.

In response to a question, the Highways Development Control Services Manager, Environment Department, stated that whilst he could not provide a detailed vehicle numbers breakdown for the relevant stretch of the B1368, the number of HGVs using the B1368 road was relatively low compared to other B roads in Hertfordshire and the proposed increased movements would not cause a capacity problem.

In response to a question on the number of accidents on these roads, he stated that the level of personal injury accidents recorded was low and there was knowledge

of a recent non injury accident involving a lorry.

Reference was made to the Members Site visit undertaken, in particular the significant erosion of the access roads leading off the B1368 and whether the operators of Anstey Quarry could be requested to contribute to restoring the condition of / repairing these roads.

The local County Councillor for the Braughing constituency expressed her concern to the proposed increase in vehicle movements, which would have a serious impact on the quality of life of local residents in this area and in particular increased the risk

of safety to dog walkers and horse riders using these roads.

The local County Councillor for the North Herts Rural constituency expressed concern on behalf of his constituents residing in Barley and Barkway some of whose properties suffered shuddering when heavy goods vehicles drove past

on there way to and from Anstey Quarry and / or whilst walking in local streets / roads.

RESOLVED

That consideration of planning application ref 3/1853-08 for the variation of condition 10 of planning permission 3/1182 - 00 relating to vehicle movements at Anstey Chalk Quarry, Anstey, Buntingford, be deferred to enable : -

a)  further consultation / consultation with Anstey Parish Council, Braughing Parish Council, Barkway Parish Council, Barley Parish Council, Buckland Parish Council, Buntingford Town Council, Chipping Parish Council, Hormead Parish Council, Nuthampstead Parish Meeting and Wyddial Parish Meeting,

b)  contents of Braughing Parish Council’s Lorry Study to be taken into account,

c)  a breakdown of the number of heavy goods vehicles that use the B1368

plus accident statistics [injury and non injury] that are available,

d) any survey information easily obtainable concerning the vibration of buildings

on the access route.

HEARING SYSTEM

The Committee expressed its dissatisfaction with the acoustics system in the Council Chamber during the meeting which had caused difficulties to all Councillors but especially those with hearing difficulties to hear all the debate that had taken place.

A L Laycock

County Secretary

5