Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Marlow addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Sapsed spoke for the application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/15/1080/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor P Kenealy addressed the Committee in objection to the application as the local ward Member.  He referred to 6 principal objections with particular reference to highways, road safety, underestimated Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements of at least 1842 per year and a proposed transport plan that was unenforceable.  He urged Members to reject the application in recognition of the impacts of the proposed development and the limited local gain for the community.

The Head of Planning and Building Control referred to a substantial amount of additional information that Members had received.  He stated that this information reiterated and reinforced points that had already been made and there were no new issues raised by the additional information.

Members were reminded that the policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 had been superseded by the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the weight that could be given to the Local Plan policies had to be considered taking into account their consistency with the NPPF.

Councillor J Jones commented on the HGV vehicle movements and sought clarification regarding the likely numbers of movements per day and per year.  Councillor M Casey queried whether any excess contents of the proposed lagoon would become unusable if left for a substantial period of time.  Councillor S Bull sought clarification in respect of the conditions that had been applied regarding traffic movements given that Hertfordshire Highways had not sought to restrict the granting of planning permission.

Councillor D Andrews highlighted a number of queries and serious concerns he had regarding compliance with environmental regulations and highways safety.  He referred to the concerns of the local Parish Councils and the comments of the Countryside Access Officer.  He also commented on the acceptability of a scheme that was very close to the minimum industry standards in respect of anaerobic digestion and recycling.

Councillor B Deering commented on the possible exportation of the contents of the lagoon if this were not used locally.  He expressed a number of concerns regarding the proposed traffic management plan and the impact of additional traffic on the narrow local roads and the impact on Sacombe Bridge.

Councillor J Goodeve commented on what powers were open to Environmental Health Officers under the environmental protection act to manage any odour should this situation arise.  She referred to the concerns of the Countryside Access Officer and also the views of the British Horse Society.  She commented on whether there would be any monitoring of water quality should the application be approved.

The Head referred to the traffic issue and the NPPF policy test of what constituted a severe impact.  He reminded Members that policy TR20 of the local plan predated the NPPF and the NPPF had formed the basis of the comments of Hertfordshire Highways.  He stated there would always be highway deficiencies in terms of road width, bridges and culverts in rural areas.  He reminded Members that these were public roads that were open for the public and businesses to use.

The Head advised that the details of the traffic management plan had yet to be agreed and he summarised the likely controls that could be included as part of the conditions should the application be approved.  He advised caution regarding assigning weight to a perceived lack of enforceability in that the usual range of enforcement powers would be available to the Authority.  He stated that Members had the power to ask Officers to seek to enhance the detail of the proposed traffic management plan.

The Head concluded that the identity of the applicant was less relevant as it was the proposed use that was being considered.  He stated that the Environment Agency would expect a structure of this nature to meet the latest standards and they had not objected to the scheme.  He advised that the Council’s Environmental Health department always sought to promote best practice in respect of a facility of this nature.

Councillor K Warnell referred to a number of uncertainties that gave him cause for concern.  He commented that the application could be judged to be incompatible with the location.

In reply to a number of further comments from Members, the Head advised caution in that the Committee was making a decision on a proposed agricultural storage lagoon not a transport or distribution operation.  He acknowledged the traffic impact on the roads and urged Members to consider carefully the specific harm to this location of the likely additional traffic.

The Senior Lawyer referred to NPPF paragraph 32 as a comparable policy that Members could refer to when considering traffic management issues and their concerns.  Members had referenced policy TR20 earlier in the debate and the proposed plan could not effectively limit the significant impacts of the development.  She commented that the Head of Planning and Building Control might be able to direct Members to other relevant saved polices in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Councillor K Warnell proposed and Councillor J Jones seconded, a motion that application 3/15/1080/FUL be refused on the grounds that the proposed development would result in a significant change in the amount and type of traffic on the rural roads serving the development site and the proposal would have a significantly harmful impact on the rural character of the roads, the residential properties along it and would lead to the potential for conflict with other road users.  The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy TR20 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

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 and refused the application for the reason now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/15/1080/FUL, planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.        The proposed development would result in a significant change in the amount and type of traffic on the rural roads serving the development site which are constrained in both width and alignment.  As a result the proposal would have a significantly harmful impact on the rural character of the roads, the residential properties along it and would lead to the potential for conflict with other road users.  The proposal would thereby be contrary to policy TR20 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the NPPF.