Agenda and minutes

The Chairman advised that Member training had been arranged for Thursday 23 February 2017 in respect of new District Plan policies and article 4 directions.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 11 January 2017.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2017 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Recommended for Approval.

Ms Veater addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Davis spoke for the application.  Councillor P Boylan, as the local ward Member, addressed the Committee in respect of a number of detailed concerns regarding the outline application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/15/2081/OUT, planning permission be granted subject to a legal agreement and the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head explained that this was an outline application with all matters reserved apart from the access to the south west corner of the site onto Cambridge Road.  He detailed the legal position regarding outline applications and advised that a range of conditions could be applied as detailed in the report as well as a Section 106 legal agreement.

The Head set out the policy context with particular reference to the fact that the Council was unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.  He referred to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) test of whether the harm was significantly and demonstrably and whether it outweighed the benefits of 160 new homes.

The Head referred to the shortcomings highlighted by objectors and Officers had acknowledged the validity of some of the concerns.  Officers had also considered a range of technical advice.  Members were reminded that the highways impact had to be judged as severe before permission could be refused on that basis.

Highways Officers and the applicant’s highways consultant plus a consultant engaged by the Council had all concluded that the impact was acceptable in terms of highways safety and the capacity of the Cambridge Road/A120 junction.

Members were advised that the weight that could be given to the emerging District Plan and the local Neighbourhood Plan had to be tempered by the fact that there were unresolved objections.  The Head concluded by referring to national policy and the substantial weight that had to be given to housing delivery.  He detailed a number of relevant points detailed in the additional representations summary.

Councillor D Andrews highlighted the views of the highway authority and the consultants in terms of highways safety and the capacity of the Cambridge Road/A120 junction.  He referred to the importance of a robust travel plan and expressed concerns regarding pedestrian safety.  He commented on the damage to the pedestrian refuge and the evidence of vehicles having skidded before hitting this refuge.

Councillor D Andrews disagreed with the consultant’s views that the junction had a good safety record.  He referred to the 85^th percentile speed and the view that motorists at this speed would only stop in time if a vehicle had started to turn out of Cambridge Road if they reacted immediately.  He stated his concerns regarding the motorists who exceeded this speed.

Councillor D Andrews referred to the significant walk to bus stops and the difficulties of accessing the bus stop on the south side of the A120.  He detailed the public transport options for commuting and other general travel out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 564.

Determination of Council’s position in relation to an appeal.

Mr Woroniecki addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Councillor S Rutland-Barsby, as the local ward Member, addressed the Committee in respect of her concerns that a non-determination appeal had been submitted.  She referred in detail to a number of other significant concerns.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that, in respect of application 3/16/1877/OUT, had East Herts Council been in a position to determine this application, it would have refused planning permission for the proposed development for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head referred to the appeal for non-determination and illustrated how this situation had arisen.  Members were advised that a number of outstanding technical matters had necessitated another period of consultation and the application had gone beyond the 13 week period for determination.  Members were being asked to indicate what their decision would have been had they determined the application.

The Head detailed the application and advised that Officers had recommended refusal due to the potential for substantial harm to the openness of the metropolitan green belt.  Members were advised that the Health and Safety Executive were concerned regarding the proximity of a gas pipeline to this site.

Officers felt that the benefits, including housing delivery, would not clearly outweigh the harm to the green belt. The Head detailed a number of points in the late representations summary.  Councillor R Brunton felt that the application should be refused due to the potential harm to the green belt and the proximity of the gas pipe line.

Councillor D Andrews made reference to policy ENV26 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.  Councillor B Deering highlighted the lack of any positives regarding this scheme.  He referred to the weekly flooding of the B158.

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 3/16/1877/OUT, had East Herts Council been in a position to determine this application, it would have refused planning permission for the proposed development for the reasons detailed in the report submitted.

a)              Recommended for Approval.

b)              Recommended for Approval.

Mr Wood addressed the Committee in support of both applications.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/2151/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to a legal agreement and the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.  The Head also recommended that in respect of application 3/16/2152/LBC, listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head detailed the site history and the current application and referred to additional parking spaces and the proposed landscaping scheme.  Members were advised that Officers felt that a residential use was not the most appropriate use of the building and Officers had accepted that there would be some loss of employment.

Members were reminded that access issues were a civil matter between the relevant landowners.  The Head acknowledged the potential for overlooking and advised that obscure glazing to lounge accommodation would be inappropriate in terms of the amenity of future occupiers.

Members were further advised that on balance, Officers considered the applications to be acceptable subject to conditions including a condition referred to by Councillor D Andrews regarding construction hours of working.  Councillor R Standley expressed concerns regarding overlooking from the windows of the proposed development.

The Head confirmed to Councillor D Oldridge that no specific projects had been identified for the funding detailed on page 134 of the report submitted.  Members agreed to a suggestion from Councillor M Allen that details of the proposed access and dust mitigation arrangements and construction hours of working should be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The Head confirmed that Members could give Officers delegated authority to seek up to the maximum funding provision, in relation to the Councils published policy position in the s106 planning Obligation Agreements SPD, in the Section 106 legal agreement.  Councillor D Oldridge proposed and Councillor M Casey seconded, a motion that the application 3/16/2151/FUL be granted subject to Officers being given delegated authority to seek up to the maximum funding provision for the Section 106 legal agreement.

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

RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/16/2151/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to Officers being given delegated authority to seek up to the maximum funding provision in the Section 106 legal agreement, in relation to the Councils published policy position in the Section 106 Planning Obligation Agreements SPD, and subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted and subject to the following amended conditions:

11.    Prior to the commencement of any works details of the proposed access arrangements to the site and to the northern maltings building during construction works  shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such details shall include the provision of space within the site to provide  ...  view the full minutes text for item 566.

Recommended for Refusal.

Mr Cavill addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/2114/HH, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head detailed the nature of the application and advised that the proposed development constituted inappropriate development in the metropolitan green belt in line with the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Members were advised the proposed scheme could cause substantial harm to the green belt and the application should only be approved if there were very special circumstances.  The Head referred to the positive impacts of the application as detailed in paragraph 10.17 of the report submitted.

Councillors M Allen, R Brunton, M Casey and J Jones expressed support for the scheme and referred in particular to the special circumstances why the application should be approved.  Councillor D Andrews referred to how the large volume of soil excavated would be removed from the site.  He felt that the scheme would not affect openness and he sought more detail regarding the visible elements of the application.

Councillor D Oldridge felt that the application could cause significant harm to the green belt and stated that the benefits did not outweigh the harm.  He queried the depth of the underground development and expressed concerns that a significant chunk of green belt would have to be excavated.

Councillor K Warnell considered that there would be no visible harm from this project in a green belt location.  The Head estimated the excavated depth to be approximately 2.5 to 3 metres.  Members were advised that details of the stair casing, car lift and arrangements for spoil removal had not been submitted to Officers.

Councillor D Andrews proposed and Councillor M Allen seconded, a motion that application 3/16/2114/HH be deferred to enable Officers to seek additional information in relation to the details of the proposal.

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 3/16/2114/HH, planning permission be deferred to enable Officers to seek additional information in relation to the details of the proposal.

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

(B)  Planning Appeals Lodged

(C)    Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing Dates

(D)    Planning Statistics

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.