Agenda item

Recommended for Refusal.

Mr Collins addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/15/1584/FUL, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.  The Head summarised the proposed development as an application for 6 industrial units on a site which was located in a rural area of the District.  Members were also referred to the additional representations summary.

Members were advised that, due to the location of the site, the application constituted inappropriate development that was contrary to policy GBC3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.  The site was also considered to be in an unsustainable location as it relied on motor vehicle access and was therefore contrary to the main aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The Head advised that Officers had been unable to judge the noise impact of the application on the living conditions of nearby residents due to insufficient information submitted as part of the application.  The Head also referred to the economic benefits of the scheme in terms of rural employment which weighed in favour of the proposal.  Officers considered, however, that this did not sufficiently outweigh the policy objection to the proposed development.

The Head stated that the existence of a previous planning permission on the site was unlikely to result in the same level of Class B1/B2 provision on the site as proposed by this application.  This matter did not, therefore, outweigh the policy objections to this application. 

The Head concluded that although the impact of the application on the character and appearance of the area in respect of highways and parking was acceptable, Officers felt that on balance, the recommendation for refusal was justified in this case.

Councillor J Kaye queried whether the noise issue related to traffic or noise that might emanate from the proposed units.  Councillor K Warnell stated that Officers considered this scheme to be unsustainable whereas the extant planning permission allowed for a similar form of development.

Councillor M Casey commented on the uneven nature of the access road which was essentially an unpaved track.  He questioned the sustainability of the site purely from the point of view of access.

Councillor T Page commented on the unsustainability of this site and he referred in particular to the policy considerations detailed in paragraph 4.1 on page 61 of the report.  He concluded that the impact on neighbouring residential properties was neutral and the only possible reason for refusing the application was car parking in relation to a B8 use.

The Head of Planning and Building Control advised that the noise issue related to noise emanating from the proposed units as well as noise generated by traffic to and from the site.  The Head advised that the previous planning permission had been similarly unsustainable although this had been approved prior to adoption of the NPPF and for a specific use.

Members were advised that this previous application had also been contrary to rural area policy and had been recommended for refusal on those grounds.  Members had, however, approved the application in support of the water bottling business operating from the site at that time.

The Head advised that although the access was not straight, Hertfordshire Highways had not sought to restrict the grant of planning permission on that basis.  Members were advised that similar levels of traffic would very likely result from the extant planning permission on the site.

The Head concluded that some weight should be given to the economic benefits of the application.  However, Members were reminded that the site was in an unsustainable location and the development would be better located in a town where alternative means of transport were available.

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 3/15/1584/FUL, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.