Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors M Alexander and Mrs R Cheswright.  It was noted that Councillor S Bull was substituting for Councillor Alexander.

The Vice–Chairman advised that the Chairman was unwell and he would be chairing the meeting.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 10 December 2014 (Previously circulated as part of the Council Minute book for 17 December 2014).

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 December 2014 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Recommended for Approval.

Jane Orsborn and Tony Prior addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that 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, in respect of application 3/14/1583/FP, planning application be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director advised that the first issue for Members to consider was the principle of development on this site.  Officers were of the view that planning permission should be granted as this site was part of a wider area of land identified for residential development.

Members were advised that there were options for the mix of subsidised housing as part of this application and the achievable options were detailed on page 22 of the report.  The Director stated that the current policy of the Authority was to ensure that such provision was provided within a development site as there were generally limited options to secure provision elsewhere.

The Director commented that the site was located immediately adjacent to the wider Bishop’s Stortford North ASR sites where some provision of subsidised housing could be made.  Members were advised that the Council’s Solicitor was concerned that an adverse precedent would be set if the 100% shared ownership option was selected contrary to Council policy.

The Director stated that if the Committee considered that the development proposal had merit in principle; Members should attach limited weight to the preference of the applicant for off-site provision of subsidised housing.

Councillor G Jones disagreed with the conclusions of paragraph 6.13 that the Bishop’s Stortford Silverleys and Meads Neighbourhood Plan could not be given significant weight until the document had been considered further and subjected to a referendum, given that the final content of the plan was known.  He also expressed some concern regarding the impact of the conclusions of paragraph 6.13 on other Neighbourhood Plans across the District and the lack of weight that could be assigned to documents that had been the subject, in this case, of at least two years work.

Councillor N Symonds stated that she was very concerned that no social housing had been included on the site as part of this application.  She commented that the application constituted overdevelopment of the site and ingress and egress would be very difficult into what was currently a muddy field with no proper access road.

Councillor Symonds commented that Bishop’s Stortford Town Council and Chantry Community Association were against the application and she was concerned over the impact of the application on wildlife.  She stated that the site was the last area of green space left in this part of Bishop’s Stortford apart from Hoggates Wood.

Councillor P Moore expressed concerns in respect of the point raised on page 12 of the report that the main Bishop’s Stortford North development area was a more suitable location for social housing.  She was also concerned in respect of the assertion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 459.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Key addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Thackray and Mr Sneddon spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/14/0369/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director referred Members to the late representations summary for additional comments for and against the proposed development.  Members were advised that amended layout plans had been submitted which indicated the potential for an increased level of parking provision on the site.  The Director advised that the revised plans had not been the subject of public consultation.

Councillor M Carver, as the local ward Member, referred to this being an application for the replacement of a derelict but once vibrant and well respected public house and restaurant with a similar facility that included limited guest accommodation.  He commented that Members had received a very extensive critique in respect of the report from those who objected to the application.

Councillor Carver stated that the Officer should be praised for thoroughly addressing the proposals and all points of concern that had been raised on the basis of their planning relevance only. He also praised the Highways engineer for thoroughly engaging with this application.

Councillor Carver urged Members to consider the hierarchy of planning policy as well as the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  He concluded that all of the planning policy arguments had been balanced by Officers and he urged Members to do the same.  Councillor Carver stated that the community input from Much Hadham residents was an equal balance of support and objection.

Councillor S Bull welcomed the application and stated that Hertfordshire Highways had no objections in what was one of the prettiest villages in East Herts.  Councillor G Williamson stated that an application for a pub on a site that previously had a pub was preferable to other potential forms of development.

Councillor P Ruffles referred to the hierarchy of planning matters and highlighted that the highways considerations in the report did not accord with his understanding that, as regards off site highways improvements, pedestrians were generally given a greater consideration than cars in highways terms.

Councillor G Williamson commented that the application could be deemed to be inappropriate development in the rural area beyond the Green belt.  He stated that this was not a sustainable location in transport terms as the bus service was very thin and he could not see many customers arriving by bus.

The Director advised that the footway improvements in the form of a wider footway would be limited to the area immediately in front of the application site.  Members were advised that there did not appear to be any prospect of a more extensive widening of the footway between the site and the main area of the village because land was either not available or this would require a narrowing of the road carriageway which was likely to be unacceptable. 

Members were advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 460.

a)       3/14/1594/FO – Recommended for Approval.

b)       3/14/1593/LB – Recommended for Approval.

Mr Douglas and Ms Williams addressed the Committee in support of the applications.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of applications 3/14/1594/FP and 3/14/1593/LB, planning permission and listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor J Wing, as the local ward Member, stated that he would be less concerned if the conditions presented to the Committee were enforceable in planning terms.  He referred to his objection to the previous application on the grounds of overdevelopment on the site. 

Councillor Wing queried whether Members would have still approved so many residential properties on the site had that application included the mezzanine floor and increased size of the school.  He stated that he considered that the original application was excessive and did not meet the maximum parking standards as the area was particularly stressed as regards on street parking.

Councillor Wing concluded that this site was already overdeveloped and he urged the Committee to reject both applications as they would place additional parking pressures on an area that was already under severe parking stress.

The Director reminded Members that the existing building had a lawful planning use for school purposes and planning permission was not normally required for a mezzanine floor within an existing school building.  Members were advised that planning permission was required for the additional car parking and listed building consent was required as the school was a listed building.

The Director advised that it would be sensible for Members to determine application 3/14/1593/LB, the listed building consent, before application 3/14/1594/F0.  The Committee was reminded that it would be unwise to refuse application 3/14/1594/FO if Members were supportive of the listed building consent application.

Councillor E Bedford commented that he did not feel that the addition of the proposed mezzanine floor would pose any problems particularly as this would not be attached to the main fabric of the building.  He emphasised that additional floor space made this a viable proposition and the internal alterations would be unobtrusive and would not affect the external appearance of the listed building.  He concluded that the parking issue would not be so severe as to be a major problem and he felt that double yellow lines or “keep clear” markings could be used to alleviate problems outside the school.

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 in respect of applications 3/14/1593/LB and 3/14/1594/FO, listed building consent and 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 3/14/1799/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director confirmed to Councillor G Jones that the Authority would be able to control the proposed construction materials as the applicant had submitted the relevant information on the submitted drawings.

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 3/14/1799/FP, 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/13/0221/B, the Committee note and endorse the decision of the Director to issue, under delegated authority, an enforcement notice on the basis now detailed.

The Director advised that the original Enforcement decision had a compliance period of 6 months and Officers had not served this notice as the appellant had assured the Authority that they would vacate the property within 3 months.  Officers were aware however, that this had not occurred and Members were being asked to endorse the action, taken under delegated authority, to issue an Enforcement action with a 3 month compliance period so that no further time was lost.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the Director’s recommendation to endorse the enforcement action taken in respect of the site relating to E/13/0221/B on the basis now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of E/13/0221/B, the action of the Director of Neighbourhood Services, taken under delegated authority, to take enforcement action on the basis now detailed, be endorsed.

(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.

The Committee congratulated Officers on the performance statistics detailed in the report in respect of planning applications.  Councillors G Jones and N Symonds requested that Officers include some performance information in future in respect of Planning Enforcement.

The Director stated that Enforcement Matters were not generally in the public domain and in many cases, following investigation; the outcome was that there was no breach of planning control.  The Director advised that figures that did not identify specific cases would be presented to Members.

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.