Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors D Andrews and B Deering.  It was noted that Councillors P Boylan and S Bull were substituting for Councillors D Andrews and B Deering respectively.

The Chairman congratulated Legal Services Manager, Victoria Clothier, on her recent marriage.  Members congratulated the happy couple.

Members were reminded of the tour of the goods yard site that had been arranged for 20 July 2017 at 4.45 pm, followed by a briefing at the Rhodes Arts Complex at 6 pm where light refreshments would be available.

Members were requested to indicate page numbers when referring to paragraphs in the Committee reports to assist those who were viewing the agenda on electronic devices.

To confirm the Minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on Wednesday 24 May and Wednesday 21 June 2017.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meetings held on 24 May and 21 June 2017, be confirmed as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Hayter addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Fuselli and Mr Tarzey spoke for the application.  Councillor Davies addressed the Committee in objection to the application on behalf of Stanstead Abbotts Parish Council.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/2296/OUT, subject to a legal agreement, outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor M Allen, as the local ward Member, commented on development not being seen in a negative perspective.  He emphasised that the Authority considered all development proactively.  He stated that whilst this development was well planned and well laid out, there were some significant issues.  He referred to affordable housing and the fact that the site was located in the green belt.  He concluded that more detail was required before Members could make an appropriate decision.

The Head referred to the late representations summary and additional information regarding suggested conditions should the application be approved.  Members were referred to additional commentary from the Economic Development Manager and the Environmental Strategy and Development Manager.

The Head stated that, given the outline nature of the application and the fact that Section 106 matters were a matter for discussion, delegated authority was being sought for Officers to amend the financial provisions in any legal agreement.  Members were advised that a key consideration was the reuse of previously developed land in the green belt.  The Head detailed the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) description of previously developed land and Members were reminded that such redevelopment was not inappropriate in the green belt.  Members were referred to page 9 of the report regarding openness and the green belt as well as the volumes of the proposed development in paragraph 10.4.

The Head reminded Members that marketing of the site was always encouraged where there would be a loss of employment land.  He referred to a less than ideal policy scenario that had been presented in that the site had not been advertised as an employment site by the applicant.  He also referred to the shortcomings of the buildings and the regulations around energy efficiency.  Officers had acknowledged the lack of affordable housing and were in agreement with the applicant’s viability assessment that the costs of remediation works made the provision of affordable housing unviable.  The NPPF stipulated that planning authorities should not seek to apply policy requirements where these rendered development proposals unviable.

Members were reminded of the NPPF requirement that where there was not a 5 years supply of housing land, applications should be approved unless there would be significant and demonstrable harm.  The Head concluded that this application was for an additional 30 housing units to be added to the housing supply chain in East Herts.

Councillor S Bull commented that developments of over 10 dwellings qualified for affordable housing.  He also referred to the issues of sustainability and car parking.  Councillor P Ruffles referred to the status of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

Recommended for Approval.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/17/1086/VAR, subject to a deed of variation to the Section 106 Agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Chairman summarised the situation for Members regarding the timeline of the relevant planning history.  The Head confirmed that this application was simply to resolve an anomaly that had been referred to the Chairman in his introduction.

Councillor M Casey commented that the site was less than ideal for a housing development.  He commented on whether Members were bound by the previous decision or should the whole application be considered afresh by the Committee.

Councillor P Ruffles referred to the site being in his ward and stated that the relationship of the site with the local environment was quite a good one.  He referred to the site not being totally isolated due to an important footpath and he emphasised that rectifying the omissions from the earlier application was a positive step forward.

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 3/17/1086/VAR, subject to a deed of variation to the Section 106 Agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Recommended for Approval.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/17/0223/FUL, subject to a legal agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head summarised the application and detailed the relevant planning history.  He confirmed that 2 of the buildings on the site had been converted to residential use under recent permitted development legislation.  He stated when sites were developed in a piecemeal manner, the Council’s policies sought to ensure that the site was considered as a whole in respect of affordable housing and financial contributions.

Members were advised that the details of the County Council financial contributions were subject to further consideration following confirmation from the County Council that contributions for education and youth services only were to be required.  Delegated authority was therefore being sought to resolve the final detail of this with the applicant.

The Head confirmed that the site was located within the built up envelope of the town and further development was therefore considered to be acceptable.  The proposed development was very similar in overall design and appearance to the rest of the site and the built form would sit comfortably with other developments in the immediate vicinity.

The Head advised that the affordable housing contribution was considered to be acceptable by the Council’s housing managers and would work well as regards future management purposes.  He referred to the commentary in the report regarding the reduction in the headline parking figure that would normally be sought on a development of 41 units.  Officers felt 42 spaces would be acceptable given that the site was sustainable and was located within a reasonable distance from a variety of services and facilities, such as schools and employment spaces as well as the facilities in the town centre.

Officers had recommended the application for approval due to a favourable balance of considerations.  Members were advised that Bishop’s Stortford Town Council had now objected to the application on the grounds of a difficult site access and overdevelopment.

Councillor M Casey expressed concerns regarding the car parking provision.  He commented that with parking provision of 1 space per flat any additional vehicles would end up being parked on Parsonage Lane.  He believed that the scheme was 12 spaces short in terms of car parking provision.

Councillor J Jones referred to the issue of airport parking on roads in this part of Bishop’s Stortford.  He commented on whether overspill parking resulting from this scheme would exacerbate parking problems.  He confirmed that he was content with the position regarding affordable housing.

Councillor K Warnell confirmed that he was happy with the proposed development but emphasised that he was also concerned over the lack of visitor parking and general shortfall of parking provision on this site.  He commented on whether a significantly larger amount of parking spaces could be sought than the number of units being proposed by this application.

The Head advised that the submitted plans appeared to indicate that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.

Recommended for Approval.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/17/0819/SV, subject to a deed of variation to the legal agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now 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 3/17/0819/SV, subject to a deed of variation to the legal agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

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

(B)  Planning Appeals Lodged.

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

(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.