Agenda and minutes

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

The Chairman referred to a planning open office afternoon on Friday 21 October 2016, which would include a lunchtime meeting with Officers and a tour of the planning office.  He requested that Town and Parish Council colleagues be reminded of a training event for Town and Parish Councillors on Tuesday 18 October 2016.

The Chairman reminded Members that there would be a briefing regarding Bircherley Green at 7 pm on Wednesday 2 November 2016, at Hertford Theatre.  He advised that training events had been arranged for Thursday 24 November 2016 and Thursday 23 February 2017.

Finally, the Chairman welcomed Victoria Clothier, Legal Services Manager, and Councillor P Boylan to their first meetings of the Committee.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 14 September 2016.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2016 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Recommended for Refusal.

Mr Kemp addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/1708/OUT, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.  The Head explained that the main issues to consider with the proposal were ones of timing and comprehensiveness.  He advised that increased weight could be assigned to the pre-submission version of the District Plan now that this had been approved by Council.

Members were also advised that the other issue of relevance was the matter of unresolved objections to the Plan and this was more of an unknown until the pre-submission consultation revealed whether any feedback was forthcoming regarding this site.  Officers were confident that the District Plan was fully compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The Head advised that the site was in the green belt so the usual tests applied in terms of whether there were very special circumstances to justify the proposed development.  Members were reminded to consider whether there were any very special circumstances that clearly outweighed any harmful impacts.

The Head confirmed that the District Plan included this area of land together with a larger area and, as this application only covered a section of that allocated land, the scheme could be seen as being premature and would undermine the aspiration of securing appropriate supporting infrastructure.  Members were advised that the larger site within the District Plan would facilitate the supporting infrastructure and it was for these reasons that Officers had therefore recommended refusal in this case.

Councillors R Brunton, M Casey, J Goodeve and the Chairman made a number of points of relevance to this application.  In response, the Head advised that the Peter Brett report was a material consideration as it formed part of the evidence base for the District Plan.  The site was within the green belt and, regardless of quality, the NPPF tests regarding very special circumstances were still relevant.

The Head explained that a deferral would not be appropriate as the consultation on the District Plan would run until at least the end of February or early March 2017 and any form of open ended delay would not be a suitable way forward.

As regards flooding, Members were advised that the Council’s advisors had stated that wherever new development was introduced this would create a flood risk albeit a marginal one in some cases.  The consultation responses to the pre-submission District Plan would allow this and other matters to be considered in a fully formed manner.

The Head responded to a number of other minor points of relevance that were raised by Members.  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 3/16/1708/OUT, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

3/16/1654/FUL Recommended for Refusal

3/16/1655/LBC Recommended for Approval

Mr Wallis and Mr Welbourn addressed the Committee in support of the application.  Councillor N Symonds addressed the Committee as the local ward Member in support of the Officers’ recommendations.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/1654/FUL, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.  The Head also recommended that in respect of application 3/16/1655/LBC, listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Property and Planning Lawyer confirmed that the issue of land ownership outside the building was not relevant unless there were any issues with people accessing the building.  She commented that without knowing the context under which the local ward Member had made her statement, it was difficult to properly advise Members.

The Head referred to there being two applications with differing recommendations in each case.  Members were reminded of the differing regimes for applying for planning permission and listed building consent.

Members were advised that the Conservation Officer had reviewed the plans and was satisfied that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the listed building in terms of the works to be carried out under listed building consent.  However, the planning application would result in the loss of a leisure use and LRC1 was the relevant policy consideration and significant negative weight had also been given to the loss of employment.

The Committee was advised that the proposed parking provision was unacceptably low and the level of amenity for future residents was considered to be poor.  These matters outweighed the benefits of the provision of housing.  Members were reminded that it would be appropriate to refuse planning application then grant listed building consent.

The Head advised that the description of the listed building application would be clarified by deleting reference to the change of use of the building.  A directive would also be added to explain the scope of the listed building approval to the applicant.

Councillor M Casey stated that the parking provision of 5 spaces for 11 flats was inadequate and he felt that the application should be refused on those grounds alone.  After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the recommendations of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/16/1654/FUL, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted; and

(B)   in respect of application 3/16/1655/LBC, listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval

Mr Gimblett addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/1252/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.  The Head stated that the application was for a number of changes to access arrangements to the site known as Area of Special Restraint (ASR) 5 which formed part of the wider area known as Bishop’s Stortford North.

Members were advised that Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) had sought to maximise the education provision across all of the ASR sites.  The Head detailed the current thinking of HCC in terms of an optimal solution for education provision which included a 2 form entry (2FE) school as part of ASRs 1-4 plus a further 3FE school to the south-west of this site.

The Committee was advised that, following discussion between Officers, the applicant and representatives of the County Council, further amendments to the application had been forthcoming.  The Head detailed the amendments and stated that Officers had also worked with the applicant regarding the conditions and it was suggested that conditions 3 and 5 be deleted with condition 6 amended as detailed in the additional representations summary.

The Head confirmed to Councillor J Goodeve that further modelling work had confirmed that the concerns of Hertfordshire Constabulary, in respect of ensuring that motorists behaved appropriately regarding the proposed speed limits, had now been met.

Councillor D Oldridge was assured that the issue of car parking linked to the proposed 3FE school would be addressed when that application was submitted.  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 3/16/1252/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the following amended conditions:

(1)     Three year time limit (1T121)

(2)     Approved plans (2E103)

(3)     Prior to commencement of any development relating to the new T junction access to Hazelend Road, as shown on approved drawing E3321/731J and E3321/615/K, details of earthworks (to create visibility splays) as shown on the aforementioned drawings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the proposed grading and mounding of the resultant embankment, including levels and contours. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and completed not later than the first use of the new access hereby enabled.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development in accordance with policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007, policy DES3 of the pre-submission East Herts District Plan and highway safety.

(4)     All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 398.

(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.

At the invitation of the Chairman, the Head of Planning and Building Control highlighted a number of recent appeal decisions and referred in detail to a number of points of interest.

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.