Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors J Kaye and K Warnell.  It was noted that Councillors D Oldridge and S Reed were substituting for Councillors K Warnell and J Kaye respectively.

The Chairman welcomed all to the meeting and outlined the process to be followed.  He outlined general housekeeping issues and reminded those in attendance that the meeting would be webcasted.

Councillor R Standley declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in application 3/16/0689/FUL.  She left the room during the determination of this application.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 25 May 2016.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2016 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 3/16/0899/REM, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor P Ruffles sought and was provided with clarification on the status of the appeal and whether the application would impact on the new Conservation Area.  Councillor M Casey sought further clarification regarding the appeal and why the application had been brought back to Members for a decision.

Councillor B Deering commented on the points made by Hertfordshire Constabulary in paragraph 6.3 of the report submitted and the potential for a “rat-run” between the northern and southern parts of the development site.  Councillor J Jones asked if bollards could be erected to address this potential problem.  Councillor S Reed asked whether there would be hard surfacing of Drury Lane.

The Head of Planning and Building Control explained why the appeal was relevant to the application in that Members could see that their previous decision had been vindicated.  The Head commented that he could not give a detailed response on the extent of the Conservation Area, but that it had been fully taken into account in the report provided.  He commented that, in relation to the suggested “rat-run”, Officers anticipated a footpath only between the two highways created from Drury Lane and Wicklands Road.  New planting alongside would also restrict the potential for the link to be used inappropriately.

Councillor M Freeman stated that he was surprised by the Constabulary’s comments in relation to the suggestion of a “rat run”.  The Head explained the potential issues in relation to the erection of bollards and access by emergency services.

Councillor J Jones suggested the inclusion of a condition regarding the use of bollards and that this should have “Secure by Design” accreditation.  The Head explained that a condition regarding bollards was possible but that the “Secure by Design” would need to be added in the form of an informative or directive.

It was proposed by Councillor J Jones and seconded by Councillor B Deering that a condition covering the inclusion of bollards be added to the planning conditions detailed in the report.  After being put to the meeting a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/16/0899/REM, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted and the following additional condition:

6.        Prior to the commencement of any building works above ground level there shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority details of highway furniture (such as bollards or other similar installations) to prevent the ability of vehicles to access and pass along the footpath connection to be provided between the northern and southern roadways which form the development. Once agreed, such highway furniture shall be installed prior to first  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Poole addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/15/1733/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor M Casey commented on the difficulty in parking and referred to house ownership demographics in Bishop’s Stortford Central ward.  Councillor M Casey referred to the Council’s parking standards and the 12% shortfall referred to in the Officer’s report

Councillor J Goodeve commented on the size of the garages proposed and sought reassurances that they would not be turned into living spaces and that those living in social housing would not be treated less favourably.  She also expressed concern about the possibility of flooding. 

Councillor B Deering referred to the engineers’ main objection in relation to drainage.

The Chairman referred to parking provision in the area and queried whether what was being proposed fell within acceptable parking standards.

The Head of Planning and Building Control referred Members to an additional submission regarding how many cars residents were likely to have  and that, given the location and characteristics of the site, the proposed parking provision was acceptable.  He acknowledged that the proposed provision did not meet the emerging standards in full but that it sat within current tolerances and the scheme proposed was not untypical of many.

The Head commented that within any planning decision, Members had to justify issues where relevant and assign a “weight” in terms of possible harm, and make a decision.  He stated that if Officers felt that what was being proposed had harmful impacts that outweighed the benefits, then they would not recommend approval.

The Head confirmed that a condition could be added to ensure garages could not be converted into living accommodation.  He stated that there had been a range of technical assessments carried out in terms of potential flooding and how this would impact on the location and this was acceptable to the Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority.  The objection of the Council’s engineers related to the approach to surface water drainage.  The Council’s engineers were seeking the best solution.  The solution proposed was not at the highest end of the spectrum.

Councillor M Casey referred to the garages and queried whether the modern car would be too big.  He expressed concern that the lack of proposed parking would force motorists to park elsewhere in what was already a congested area.

Councillor J Jones was concerned at the lack of parking and suggested that the Officer should press for a “higher quality” application.

Councillor Goodeve proposed and Councillor Casey seconded a motion for an additional condition to ensure that the garages could not be converted into living accommodation.  After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED. 

The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed to Members that the Section 106 Heads of Terms in the published report would be updated in accordance with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/0689/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.  The Head explained that the proposal was for 3 x 1 bed flats and 7 x 2 bed flats and not as shown on the agenda. 

Councillor J Taylor, as the local ward Member, addressed the Committee in objection to the application regarding a lack of parking in relation to the number of occupants which could be resident.  She referred to the already congested areas in Ware and commented that all parking should take into account existing parking in the surrounding area.   

Councillor D Oldridge was concerned about parking in the area and suggested that more parking could be provided, but that this would impact on the amenity as referred to in the report.  He suggested that the application should be deferred and a revised plan sought. 

The Chairman queried whether the development was viable if the number of flats was reduced further. 

The Head acknowledged that there was a shortfall of parking.  He also commented that there were double yellow lines outside of the development.  He clarified a query in relation to parking allocation and affordable housing, adding that the application had already been amended from 16 to 10 affordable dwellings and that this could impact on the viability of the scheme.

Councillor S Reed suggested that the number of affordable homes be reduced to around 7 – 8 and echoed Members’ comments regarding parking.  Councillor M Casey queried whether further parking could be accommodated in the south-west corner of the site. 

Councillor D Oldridge proposed and Councillor M Casey seconded, a motion that application 3/16/0689/FUL be deferred to enable Officers to negotiate a revised plan for an improved ratio of car parking provision in relation to the number and size of residential units to be provided at this site.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that, in respect of application 3/16/0689/FUL, planning permission be deferred to enable Officers to enter into further negotiations with the applicant in order to explore the ability to achieve an improved ratio of car parking provision in relation to the number and size of residential units to be provided at this site.

At the invitation of the Chairman, the Head of Planning and Building Control summarised a number of points of relevance for Members to consider in respect of the appeal decisions detailed in the report.

The Head provided Members with a summary of key points in relation to the appeal on 3/13/1399/OP (Land East of Aspenden Road, Buntingford) which had been allowed with conditions.   He stated that the Council had been reasonable in its decision.  Councillor J Jones commented that he was disappointed with the Inspector’s decision.

In relation to application 3/15/2046/FUL, Councillor M Freeman referred to the timely intervention of an enforcement officer.

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.