Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor K Brush.  It was noted that Councillor S Bull was substituting for Councillor K Brush.

Councillor M Casey declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in application 3/15/1859/FUL, in that he had a small shareholding in GlaxoSmithKline.  He left the room whilst this matter was considered.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 11 November 2015.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2015 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

a)       3/15/0231/FUL – Recommended for Approval.

b)       3/15/0232/LBC – Recommended for Approval.

Janet Shaddock addressed the Committee in respect of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/15/0928/FUL, subject to the applicant or successor in title entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director also recommended that in respect of application 3/15/0232/LBC, listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.  He summarised the detail of both applications and set out the relevant planning history.

In response to Members’ questions and comments, the Director stated that a condition would be applied covering the design of the entrance gates.  Members were advised that the noise impact of vehicles waiting to enter the site would be likely to create no more noise than vehicle manoeuvring to park in Mill Close and Black Swan Court.

He also stated that the introduction of a one way system had not been canvassed as a possibility.  He stated that use of the North and South accesses would likely be equally split depending on where a vehicle was going.  He concluded that there was no evidence that there would be any benefits of introducing a one way system in this location.

The Director advised that moving the entrance gates further into the site would have the effect of moving one of the proposed parking spaces outside the site.  Members were advised that a viability reassessment would be triggered once 15 of the proposed units were occupied. 

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

RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/15/0231/FUL, subject to the applicant or successor in title entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted; and

(B)   in respect of application 3/15/0232/LBC, listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/15/0300/OUT, subject to a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director also recommended that the Head of Planning and Building Control, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and a minimum of one of the two local ward Members (whilst informing both ward Members at all stages of any relevant action or decision), be authorised to make amendments to the heads of terms and all related matters in relation to the legal agreement and to add or remove conditions and directives and make such changes to the wording of them as may be necessary to ensure a satisfactory development.

The Director advised that this was a hybrid application in that the full details of the residential element were available whilst the employment element was in outline form only.  Members were reminded of the history of the application and the Director confirmed that there had not been any particular change in circumstances or policy since Members last considered the outline application.

The Director referred to some additional transport modelling that had looked at the cumulative impact of residential development in and around Buntingford.  The junction of the A10 and London Road had been highlighted as a particular area of concern and the County Council was carrying out a feasibility study into works to address this issue.  The Section 106 agreement included a financial contribution of £329,400 towards capacity improvements for the A10/London Road roundabout and approach routes and a cycle path along London Road from the site northwards towards the Town Centre.

In response to Members’ comments, the Director reminded the Committee that the principle of the development had been established and many of the issues Members had raised had already been determined.  The Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) had applied a formulaic approach to the requested Section 106 figure and Officers had to apply the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) guidelines.

Members were reminded that the previous report on this scheme had highlighted an issue of viability in respect of this application.  This report had been included as an Essential Reference Paper to this latest report on this application. 

The Director assured Councillor J Jones that wording could be added to the Section 106 legal agreement for the provision of a community bus.  He also confirmed that there was provision for play space within the original outline application as well as improvements to the football club.  Members were assured that there was a mechanism in place for maximising the level of affordable housing on this site.

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

RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/15/0300/OUT, subject to a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 456.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/15/1859/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

In response to Members’ comments, Officers referred to the innovative design of the proposed development which, whilst not of a traditional design, would use high quality materials and a lot of attention to detail had gone into the development to ensure it complemented the surrounding residential development.

The applicant was known to be mindful of good neighbour relations and consideration would be given to any impact from construction traffic visiting the site.

In response to Members’ comments, Officers referred to the innovative design of the proposed development which would not be a traditional building.  The applicant was very concerned regarding neighbour relations and had proposed very high quality materials and a lot of attention to detail had gone into the development to ensure it complemented the surrounding residential development.

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

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/15/1859/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/15/1490/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director referred to the importance of preserving the character and appearance of the conservation area.  He also referred to the importance of protecting the character, appearance and integrity of listed buildings.

The Director advised that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encouraged the supporting of schemes for sport and recreation so long as they protected the openness of the Green Belt.  Officers felt that the benefits of the application clearly outweighed the potential for harm in this case.

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

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/15/1490/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/15/1724/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director advised that the amended design was acceptable and there would be no detrimental impact to the surrounding area.  Members were advised that Little Hadham Parish Council had objected to the proposed gates and walls to the property.  Officers felt that these elements of the proposal were acceptable as they were set back from the highway and would be screened by mature planting and very similar gates/walls could be built as ‘permitted development’ in any event  

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

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/15/1724/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Enforcement.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of the site relating to E/14/0179/A, enforcement action be authorised on the basis now detailed.

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/14/0179/A on the basis now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of E/14/0179/A, 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.