Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor K Warnell.  It was noted that Councillor D Oldridge was substituting for Councillor K Warnell.

To receive any Members' declarations of interest.

Councillor T Page declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 3/18/0432/FUL, on the grounds that he was a Member of Bishop’s Stortford Town Council.  He stated that he had been advised he could remain in the room in his usual role as Chairman.

Councillor B Deering declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 3/18/0432/FUL, on the grounds that he was a Member of Hertfordshire County Council for the Hertford Saint Andrews division.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 23 May 2018.

Councillor J Jones proposed and Councillor S Bull seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 May 2018 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.  After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 May 2018, 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 3/18/0432/FUL, subject to a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head referred to the additional representations summary and detailed the relevant additional commentary.  The Head summarised the findings in respect of readings that been taken regarding background noise levels.  Members were also advised that a 543 signature objecting petition had been submitted.

The Head detailed the background to the application and summarised the main objections.  The Head referred Members to pages 53 – 79 of the report submitted for the main issues.  The Head confirmed that Officers considered that the harmful impacts of the development were outweighed by the benefits.

Mr Kratz and Mr Evans addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Fannon spoke for the application.  Councillor J Wyllie addressed the Committee on behalf of Bishop’s Stortford Town Council.  Councillor D Abbott addressed the Committee as a local ward Member.

Councillor D Oldridge commented on the lack of lighting for the Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) and the opening hours of the car park.  He queried the status of the land in terms of whether this was green belt or a brownfield site.

Councillor M Casey commented on the sequence of events in respect of development of Old River Lane should this application be approved.  Councillor B Deering also referred to the enabling role of this application in the context of wider development proposals.  He queried the enabling role of this application when the details of the application for Old River Lane were not known.  Councillor J Jones posed a number of questions in respect of the proposed MUGA in terms of management, acoustic fencing and hours of use.

Councillors R Brunton and P Boylan commented that the proposed affordable housing provision should be more in keeping with the Council’s policies, given that the Authority was the applicant.  Councillor P Boylan queried whether the amendments referred to by the Landscape Advisor in paragraph 8.54 of the report had been made.  He failed to see how the application would protect or enhance the conservation area and he felt that the proposed electric charging facilities were insufficient.

The Head referred to the Bishop’s Stortford Town Centre Planning Framework in respect of the vitality and viability of the Town.  Members were advised that this document could be given weight in decision making and this included the aspiration for the future comprehensive redevelopment of the site known as Old River Lane.

The Head confirmed that the parking currently in place at The Causeway would need to be relocated if the site at Old River Lane was to be available for a mixed use redevelopment including an Arts Centre type venue.  Members could give the aspiration of the applicant, in this case the Council, to achieve redevelopment of the Old River Lane site weight in decision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Recommended for Approval.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/17/0645/FUL, subject to a legal agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head detailed the additional representations and advised that the condition 20 should be deleted as a landscaping scheme had now been submitted.  Condition 18 should also be deleted and replaced with 3 new conditions as requested by Hertfordshire Ecology.

The Head confirmed that the application had been significantly amended to reduce the number of units from 64 to 51 whilst increasing the proposed parking provision.  Members were referred in particular to paragraphs 8.12 to 8.17 of the report submitted.  The Head also referred to the highways impact, parking provision as well as cycle and pedestrian route improvements.

Mr Stevenson addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Smith spoke for the application.  Councillors J Goodeve and M Stevenson both addressed the Committee as local ward Members.

Councillor D Oldridge stated that he appreciated that there had been a lot of potential concerns regarding traffic on Ware Road.  He commented however, that he had also heard a number of positive things in respect of the proposed development.  He referred to the 52 cycle storage spaces and 39.2% affordable housing and emphasised that Hertfordshire Highways appeared to be satisfied with the traffic situation.

Councillor D Andrews bemoaned the loss of an employment site.  He commented however, that residential development seemed to be perfectly sensible seeing as the location seemed to have run its course as an employment use.  The site also seemed to be very sustainable due to the 20 minute walkable proximity of Ware train station which was not too onerous weather permitting.

Councillor D Andrews emphasised that Councillor D Oldridge had made the point about double lines but these had the side effect of displacing car parking problems elsewhere.  He expressed concerns that the NHS had no apparent interest in securing any funding for healthcare provision in respect of the proposed development.

Councillor P Ruffles proposed and Councillor P Boylan seconded, a motion that in respect of application 3/17/0645/FUL, the Committee support the recommendation for approval subject to the amended conditions now detailed.

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

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/17/0645/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to a legal agreement and the following amended conditions:

1              Three year time limit (1T12)

2              Approved plans (2E10)

3              Levels (2E05)

4              Boundary walls and fences (2E10)

5              Samples of materials (2E12)

6              Lighting details (2E27)

7              Communal TV facilities (2E28)

8              Cycle parking facilities (2E29)

9              Contaminated land survey and remediation (2E33)

10        Hard surfacing (3V21)

11        The development shall not be occupied until details of a Travel Plan for the development as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Recommended for Approval.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/17/1861/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head referred to a petition objecting to the application where no grounds of objection had been detailed.  Councillor P Boylan referred to damage to the access road to the recycling site in the form of potholes.  He felt that there should be a resolution to this issue as the road would get progressively worse and worse.  He also commented on the outcome of the receipt of a revised drainage strategy.

Councillor S Bull welcomed the application for B1 business use class units and he hoped that they would be taken up.  He expressed concerns about the potholes near the amenity tip.  He also referred to the significant 15 foot drop in ground level to the river and the pavement was narrow and dangerous for pedestrians.

Councillor J Jones commented on the planning history on the widening of Aspenden Road and upgrading of internal roads and a contribution towards a community bus.  He felt that whilst the applicant here could not be asked to fund improvements to Aspenden Road, the applicant should be responsible for the upkeep of the wider road network within the Watermill Industrial Estate.

Councillor D Andrews referred to the access road as unsafe.  He felt that supporting this application with the access road in its current state was untenable.  He referred to the potential for 120 vehicle movements per day.

The Head referred to condition 10 and the requirements of the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA).  Members were advised that a condition to secure the management of the area to the north of the proposed units would be acceptable.  The Head and the Interim Legal Services Manager responded to queries from Members regarding the viability tests for conditions regarding the resurfacing of internal roads within this site.

Councillor J Jones proposed and Councillor M Casey seconded, a motion that in respect of application 3/17/1861/FUL, the Committee support the recommendation for approval subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted and subject to the access road though the Watermill Industrial Estate from the junction with Aspenden Road being repaired and surfaced to a satisfactory standard and prior to first occupation of the development, a management plan for the treatment and maintenance of the undeveloped land to the north of the new buildings and the car parking area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted, subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted and the two additional conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/17/1861/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

a) 3/18/0297/HH - Recommended for Refusal

b) 3/18/0298/LBC - Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/0297/HH, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.  The Head also recommended that in respect of application 3/18/0298/LBC, listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head summarised the applications for planning permission and listed building consent.  The planning application included an element on underground works as well as conventional above ground development that would replace existing development elsewhere on the site.

He indicated that Members should consider whether the proposed additional floor space represented a disproportionate development over and above the size of the original property in the green belt.  The Head confirmed that, if this was the case, the benefits of the proposals had to clearly outweigh the harm for it to be supported in a green belt location.

Members were advised that there would be no wider public benefits of the proposed development and Officers did not feel that very special circumstances were demonstrated as a result.

Members were advised that the main issue in respect of the listed building application was the impact on the historic architectural integrity of the building.  Officers felt that the listed building application was acceptable and had recommended it for approval.

Jennifer Smith addressed the Committee in support of both applications and in particular, highlighted a discrepancy on the plans and calculations.  The Head of Planning and Building Control accepted that this warranted further investigation away from this meeting.

Councillor D Oldridge proposed and Councillor D Andrews seconded, a motion that in respect of applications 3/18/0297/FUL and 3/18/0298/LBC, planning permission and listed building consent be deferred to enable Officers to further check the size and scale of the proposals with the applicant.

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

RESOLVED – that in respect of applications 3/18/0297/HH and 3/18/0298/LBC, planning permission and listed building consent be deferred to enable Officers to further check the size and scale of the proposals with the applicant.

At this point (9.45 pm), the Committee passed a resolution that the meeting should continue until the completion of the remaining business on the agenda.

Recommended for Approval.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/0169/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Kevin Hinds addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor S Bull proposed and Councillor D Andrews seconded, a motion that in respect of application 3/18/0169/FUL, the Committee support the recommendation for approval as detailed in the report now submitted.

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

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/18/0169/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Executive Member for Development Management and Council Support submitted a report inviting Members to consider the objections to the making of the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) received by Mr and Mrs Devonshire who were the neighbours residing at the adjacent property to the school at Schuberts, Tower Hill, Much Hadham, SG10 6DL.

Members were asked to consider the objections and reasons for making the TPO and to determine whether Tree Preservation Order No. 1 2018 P/TPO 611 should be confirmed.

The Consultant Chartered Arboriculturist stated that an application had been made to heavily crown reduce an oak tree to the rear of the school.  She felt that this would excessively harm the health of what was quite a substantial tree which was in good health and would have a significant contribution to the area going forward.

Members were advised that the residents’ concerns could be addressed via pruning and an application had been received and approved for pruning and crown reduction of the oak tree.

Councillor D Allen proposed and Councillor D Oldridge seconded, a motion that the Tree Preservation Order No.1 2018 P/TPO 611 be confirmed.  After being to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Executive Member for Development Management and Council Support as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that Tree Preservation Order No 1 2018 P/TPO 611 be confirmed without modification.

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

(B)  Planning Appeals Lodged.

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

(D)     Planning Statistics.

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.