Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors R Fernando and J Kaye. It was noted that Councillors Devonshire and Newton were substituting for Councillors Kaye and Fernando respectively.

The Chairman welcomed Members and the Public to the meeting and detailed the categories of attendee that were present at the online meeting.  He introduced each Member and Officer in attendance at the meeting.

The Chairman said that the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 came into force on Saturday 4 April 2020 to enable councils to hold remote committee meetings during the Covid-19 pandemic period. This was to ensure local authorities could conduct business during this current public health emergency.  This meeting of the Development Management Committee was being held remotely under these regulations, via the Zoom application and was being recorded and live streamed on YouTube.

The Chairman said that the order of the agenda would be changed in that applications 3/18/2798/FUL and 3/18/2799/LBC would be considered before application 3/20/0151/OUT.

To receive any Members' declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 9 September 2020.

Councillor Beckett proposed, and Councillor Crystall seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2020 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 9 September 2020, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

3/18/2798/FUL – Recommended for Approval

3/18/2799/LBC – Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of applications 3/18/2798/FUL and 3/18/2799/LBC, planning permission and listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Service Manager (Development Management), on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, said that the issues for Members to consider were set out at paragraph 1.4. He referred in particular to the heritage impact in the conservation area and said that this matter carried particular weight. Members were advised that the building was currently vacant and was a listed building.

The Service Manager advised that securing the reuse, upkeep and future use of a listed building carried substantive positive weight. He referred to a late representation from the occupier of 8 Bluecoats which was an adjoining office building. He said that this occupier had previously objected to the application and the previous objection was included in the report now submitted.

Members were advised that the objection related to the proposed building of a new two bedroom apartment in front of 9 Bluecoats and the representation also mentioned the Section 106 agreement for 6, 7 and 8 Bluecoats. The objector had also said that they considered the site unacceptably restricts access for cars and emergency to the side and rear of 8 Bluecoats. The objection had also covered the fact that work had commenced in the basement prior to planning permission being granted.

The Service Manager said that paragraph 8.24 of the report addressed the relationship between the proposed development and adjoining buildings and in particular 8 Bluecoats and this was considered to be acceptable. He advised that paragraph 8.37 covered the fact that this was a town centre site and was therefore highly accessible. Members were advised that car parking was therefore not regarded as critical to the acceptability of the development.

The Service Manager reminded Members that sub-standard and indeed car free developments of conversions to residential had been permitted in the town centres of both Hertford and Bishop’s Stortford. He said that the loss of parking space 13 was not critical but future parking and site plans must be accurate for future enforcement and delegated authority was sought so that Officers could clarify the matter of ownership of parking spaces.

The Service Manager said that Officers accepted that the access and circulation within the site was shared and contentious due to the historic layout of the site being far from ideal and restricted in nature by modern standards. The site was nevertheless acceptable in this context.

The Service Manager gave Members a detailed description of the layout of the site and the proposed development, including a description of the proposed elevations and basement works. He commented on the overall quality of the listed building and referred to the sectional elevations.

Members were reminded of the quality of the building renovations and were advised that the proposed extensions were of the same quality and the Conservation Officer had raised no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 223.

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/20/0151/OUT, outline planning permission be granted subject to a legal agreement and the conditions detailed in the report now submitted. It was also recommended that delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the Section legal agreement and conditions.

The Principal Planning Officer, on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, referred to the late representations summary that had been published online. She said that the outline application was for up to 223 residential dwellings on the site of the existing Bishop’s Stortford High School.

Members were reminded that the principle of the redevelopment had been established in principle as this was a strategic site in the District Plan and there was also a Master Plan associated with this site and this was in accordance with District Plan Policy DES1.

The Principal Planning Officer said that the masterplan had indicated that the site could achieve more than 150 dwellings. She said that the increase for up to 223 dwellings was due to land not now being required for the adjoining Thorley Hill primary school due to the planned three forms of entry (3FE) school on the Bishop’s Stortford South site.

Members were advised that the report provided a summary of responses from statutory consultees and the principle of the residential use of the site had been established. The Principal Planning Officer said that the Highway Authority does not consider there to be existing highways safety issues and this development had not created any reason to refuse the application on highways grounds.

Members were advised that the Housing Officer was satisfied that the development proposed 40% affordable housing and the tenure split would be 75% affordable rent and 25% intermediate housing. The Housing Officer had acknowledged the policy requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in that 10% of affordable housing should be intermediate housing.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a slide presentation showing the outline of the application site from the District Plan. Members were shown the developable area that was available for this application.

The Committee was advised there were residential and landscaped elements to the site and there was a TPO area to the eastern side of the site plus a wooded area to the west known as The Spinney, which was on land owned by East Herts Council where all the trees were also protected.

The Principal Planning Officer said that the proposed development comprised a mix of detached and attached dwellings plus some residential apartments of up to three stories. She said that there was a lot green space in the site masterplan and the access to this green space was covered by the conditions and the Section 106 legal agreement.

Members were also advised that the density of 30 units per hectare was similar to the adjoining housing developments.  The Principal Planning Officer said that there were conditions covering the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 224.

(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

(D)      Planning Statistics.

To consider such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration and is not likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information.

There was no urgent business.