Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors E Bedford and T Page.  It was noted that Councillors N Symonds and B Wrangles were in attendance as substitutes for Councillors T Page and E Bedford respectively.

The Chairman reminded Members of the importance of attending the next scheduled training session on 27 February 2013, at 5.15 pm, in Room 27, Wallfields, Hertford.  Officers would be providing Members with a number of important updates to legislation.

Councillors M Alexander and P Moore declared disclosable pecuniary interests in application 3/12/1632/FO, in that they were Board Members for Riversmead Housing Association and this housing association was likely to have an interest in part of the site.  They left the room whilst this matter was considered.

Councillors D Andrews and S Bull declared disclosable pecuniary interests in application 3/12/1860/FP, in that they were Board Members for South Anglia Housing Association.  They left the room whilst this matter was considered.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 9 January 2013 (Previously circulated as part of the Council Minute book for 30 January 2013).

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 January 2013 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Recommended for Refusal.

Edward Wischhusen addressed the Committee against the application.  Guy Wheatcroft spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1934/OP, outline planning permission be refused for the reasons now detailed.

The Director referred Members to the comments detailed in the additional representations schedule.  Members were referred in particular, to additional information regarding the highways issues on the site.

The Director advised that Officers had passed the additional information to Hertfordshire Highways for their consideration.  Members were advised that Officers had felt there was no need to change the recommendation or the reasons for refusal.

The Chairman, as the local ward Member, stated that she had lived close to this site for 43 years and this site had been woodland and undulating grassland during that entire time.  She emphasised that the site had gone back to nature and this situation was recognised in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  Finally, she referred to the comprehensive planning reasons for refusal detailed in the very good report presented by Officers. 

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/1934/OP, outline planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to a deed of variation in respect of the unilateral undertaking dated 19 August 2011 to ensure that its requirements were properly related to this proposal, in respect of application 3/12/1632/FO, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Director referred Members to the comments detailed in the additional representations schedule.  Members were reminded that this was a section 73 application to vary a condition on a planning application that had already been approved under reference 3/09/1728/FP.

Councillor B Wrangles expressed concerns in relation to the capacity of the local roads in the vicinity of this site.  She also referred to the proximity of the site to Wheatcroft Junior School.  Councillor Wrangles stated that both her and her fellow ward Councillor remained concerned in respect of the hotel element of the application.

In response to a query from Councillor A Burlton, the Director confirmed that the previously approved requirements of the section 106 planning obligation agreement would still apply.

Councillor B Wrangles referred to policy ENV11 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007, in relation to the protection of existing hedgerows and trees.  She stated that there was a hedgerow that had been removed from the site.

The Director commented that this situation depended on whether the hedgerow was detailed on the plans as due for removal from the site.  Members were advised that Officers would look into this and see what could be done if a hedgerow had been removed.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that, subject to a deed of variation in respect of the unilateral undertaking dated 19 August 2011 to ensure that its requirements were properly related to this proposal, in respect of application 3/12/1632/FO, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Refusal.

Caroline Betts addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1551/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons now detailed.

The Chairman read out the comments of the local ward Member, Councillor M Carver.  Councillor Carver had referred to the comments of Much Hadham Parish Council as well as the Officer’s report, which he believed to be well balanced.

Councillor Carver was of the view that the location of the proposed development was the key issue for this application.  Councillor Carver considered that the application would have a detrimental impact on this area of Much Hadham and the application should be refused.

Councillor D Andrews stated that, of the considerations which Officers has been asked to investigate further by Members, the only one that was relevant was the impact of the application on the character and appearance of the area.  He stated that he continued to be supportive of this application and the scheme would not have a significant impact on the surrounding area.

Councillor Mrs R Cheswright referred to the previous concerns raised by Members on this application and believed that all of these had been resolved, in particular, the highways considerations and the provision of water.

Councillor D Andrews proposed and Councillor Mrs R Cheswright seconded, a motion that application 3/12/1551/FP be granted subject to conditions being delegated to Officers in consultation with the local ward Member.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/1551/FP, planning permission be granted subject to conditions being delegated to Officers in consultation with the local ward Member.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1906/FO, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/1906/FO, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

Keith Barnes, Linda Thomas and Jill Macklin addressed the Committee against the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1860/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor N Symonds, as the local ward Member, referred to the resolution from Bishop’s Stortford Town Council against this application.  She referred to the sound condition of the existing garages on the site.  She also commented that, due to the existing parking problems at Firlands, refuse and emergency vehicles already experienced difficulties gaining access to this road.

Councillor Symonds emphasised that the application was out of keeping with the existing street scene and the Landscape and Conservation Officers had both recommended that the application should be refused.

Councillor A Burlton referred to the objections to the application from Bishop’s Stortford Town Council and the Landscape and Conservation Officers.  He referred to the parking problems in the vicinity of the site and stated that this application would exacerbate this problem for residents.  He also stated the application should be refused.

Councillor P Moore stated that she was prepared to support this application for two new houses in this location.  Councillor G Jones stated that the application would result in a loss of 15 car parking spaces in the form of garages and another 5 spaces would be lost in the form of on–street parking.  He commented that this was unacceptable and the application should be refused.

Councillor M Newman referred to the logic behind the third condition detailed in the report.  He stated this was to ensure that the number of vehicles that would be displaced onto the public highway was kept to a minimum in the interests of highway safety.

The Director advised that Officers had recommended approval on the basis that it continued to be an aspiration of the Authority to secure the provision of affordable housing in East Herts.  The Director emphasised that unfortunately the parking problems that had been referred to were not uncommon in many areas across the District.  

The Director advised that only part of the site was within the conservation area of Bishop’s Stortford.  Members were advised that the parking surveys had indicated there was some capacity for additional on–street parking during the daytime and evenings. 

The Director stressed that the reprovision of the garages ensured there would be no net loss of garage parking provision and Officers felt able to support this application.  Members must now consider whether their concerns over the impact of the proposals in relation to parking provision were so significant as to justify a refusal of planning permission.

The Director advised that the Landscape Officer had not objected to the application on the basis of a loss of trees.  The Officer had been more concerned in respect of frontage treatment and the retention of grass verges.

Councillor G Jones proposed and Councillor A Burlton seconded, a motion that application 3/12/1860/FP be refused on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 591.

Enforcement.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of the site relating to E/12/0094/B, enforcement action be authorised on the basis now detailed.

Councillor M Newman commented on whether the appellant should have an opportunity to rectify the situation on this site prior to any enforcement action being taken.  The Director advised that Officers had recommended a compliance period of two months before any enforcement action would be taken.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the Director’s recommendation for enforcement action to be authorised in respect of the site relating to E/12/0094/B on the basis now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of E/12/0094/B, the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in conjunction with the Director of Finance and Support Services, be authorised to take enforcement action on the basis now detailed.

(A)  Appeals against refusal of Planning Permission/ non?determination.

(B)  Planning Appeals Lodged.

(C)     Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing Dates.

(D)     Planning Statistics.

RESOLVED – that the following reports be noted:

(A)   Appeals against refusal of planning permission / non determination;

(B)       Planning Appeals lodged;

(C)       Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing dates; and

(D)       Planning Statistics.