Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

The Chairman welcomed any members of the public who were watching the meeting on youtube. He wished Members and Officers a happy new year as this was the first meeting of the Committee in 2021.

The Chairman said that the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 came into force on Saturday 4 April 2020 to enable councils to hold remote committee meetings during the Covid-19 pandemic period. This was to ensure local authorities could conduct business during this current public health emergency. This meeting of the Development Management Committee was being held remotely under these regulations, via the Zoom application and was being recorded and live streamed on YouTube.

The Chairman said that the Committee would be changing the order of the agenda and application 3/19/0033/NMA would be considered before application 3/20/0897/FUL.

To receive any Members' declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 2 December 2020.

Councillor Ruffles proposed and Councillor Beckett seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 December 2020 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 December 2020, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/19/0033/NMA, the non-material amendment to planning permission 3/17/2588/OUT be granted.

The Service Manager (Quality Places) said that the scheme was a non-material amendment to an application that had been granted for the redevelopment of the Bishop’s Stortford Goods yard. Members were advised that this planning decision needed to be taken in the context of the planning permission for the entire site.

The Committee was advised that non-material amendment applications were a mechanism that enabled developers to make minor changes without have to repeat the process of applying for planning permission.

The Service Manager said that this was not an opportunity to revisit all of the issues on what had been a controversial application. She presented a slide show that set out the non-material amendments to phase 1d of the development, which comprised residential and commercial floor space and a multi storey car park that had already been constructed.

Members were advised that the main change was the relocation of the plant to the left of the site next to the hotel to enable a more joined up use of the plant by both sites. The Service Manager said a consequence of this was some internal reconfiguration of the car park and changes to the entrance to satisfy the concerns of the Secured by Design Officer in terms of security for residents. She mentioned the proposed cantilever to the front of the building to assist with structural stability.

The Service Manager referred to the 80 cm proposed lift overrun and Members were advised that due to changes in floor to ceiling heights, the overall height of the building would reduce to 19.2 metres on the southern elevation. She said that the additional changes were corrections to errors on the elevation drawings and Officers felt that these changes were non-material and the application was recommended for approval. 

Councillor Kaye sought clarification as to the location of the proposed plant, which he had understood was going to be moved closer to the hotel. The Service Manager referred to a zoomed in elevation to clarify the location of the plant, which was be to the left of the proposed hotel building.

Councillor Kemp asked if the Committee could be shown the colour elevation so that he and other Members could visualise the proposed cantilever. The Service Manager explained that this elevation would also show the proposed lift overrun and the appearance of the vents at roof level.

Councillor Stowe proposed, and Councillor Fernando seconded, a motion that application 3/19/0033/NMA be granted in respect of the non-material amendment to planning permission 3/17/2588/OUT. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED - that in respect of application 3/19/0033/NMA, the non-material amendment to planning permission 3/17/2588/OUT be granted.

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/20/0897/FUL, planning permission be granted subject a legal agreement and subject to the conditions detailed at the end of the report submitted. It was also recommended that delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the legal agreement and conditions.

The Principal Planning Officer, on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, referred to the late representations summary and said that a financial contribution of £20,000 had been secured towards the implementation of a residents’ parking zone (RPZ), which would be included within any Section 106 legal agreement.

Members were advised that due to a calculation error by Hertfordshire County Council, the affordable housing commuted sum had been increased to £343,539. The Principal Planning Officer said that her response to a question raised by a Councillor in advance of the meeting regarding viability and affordable housing was set out in the late representations summary document.

The Principal Planning Officer said that a number of late representations had been received from residents and from the Tamworth Road Neighbourhood Association. She said that many of these comments had previously been raised during the course of the application process. The responses to these comments had been included and Members were advised that comments from the applicant had also been received which had sought to address the neighbour objections.

The Principal Planning Officer said that this was a full planning application and she detailed the full details of the proposed development which included the demolition of all existing buildings on the site. Members were advised that the key issues were the principle of the development, loss of employment floor space, flood risk management, housing, layout design and appearance, climate change and water efficiency, the impact on residential amenity, heritage and highways impact and the impact on parking provision, land contamination and noise and infrastructure delivery.

The Principal Planning Officer said that the site was located on the northern side of Tamworth Road and was a non-designated employment area which consisted of a collection of non-residential buildings as well as a large area of hardstanding. The site was outside of the Hertford conservation area but was located within an area of archaeological significance. Members were advised that the site was located within flood zones one, two and three.

The Committee was advised that the site was surrounded by residential development on all sides with the Hertford East railway line to the north. The Principal Planning Officer summarised the planning history of the site and spoke in detail about the proposed layout and design of the site. She said that a number of contributions would be secured by a Section 106 legal agreement and the application had been subjected to a viability appraisal in respect of affordable housing.

Members were advised that following discussions, it had been concluded that 1 three bed house could be provided for affordable rent with a top  ...  view the full minutes text for item 340.

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

(B)  Planning Appeals Lodged.

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

(D)     Planning Statistics.

The Democratic Services Officer said that there were two sets of information for noting due to the cancelled January meeting of the Committee.

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.

To consider such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration and is not likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information.

There was no urgent business.