Agenda item

a)       3/14/2143/OP – Determination of Council’s position in relation to an appeal.

b)       3/14/2145/OP – Determination of Council’s position in relation to an appeal.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that, in respect of applications 3/14/2143/OP and 3/14/2145/OP, had East Herts Council been in a position to determine these applications, it would have granted planning permission for the proposed development subject to an appropriate range of conditions and the completion of legal agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Head referred to the appeal for non-determination and set out the planning history and the context of these applications on this site.  He set out the policy background and advised that part of this site had been reallocated for open land in the pre-submission version of the emerging District Plan.

The Head referred to the policy position whereby the reserve school site on Hadham Road would be released for housing if an alternative school site became available.  The Bishop’s Stortford North development proposals did include a site for a secondary school and this therefore, enabled the Hadham Road site to be released for housing.  A land swap agreement had now been signed between the County Council and the developers of Bishop’s Stortford North and this was the reason why application B had been supported.

The Head detailed a number of other principal issues that the Committee should consider.  Members were advised that they were now being asked to indicate what their decisions would have been had they determined these applications.  The Head confirmed to Councillor M Casey that the land swapped in relation to application B was sufficient to deliver a secondary school of up to 8 forms of entry (8FE).  He responded to Councillor Casey’s query regarding education provision by setting out a number of potential options for school delivery.

The Head confirmed that Members must reach a view on these applications due to the forthcoming appeal process.  He also pointed out that the land swap agreement and the publication of the pre-submission version of the emerging District Plan were significant reasons why further extension of time agreements had not been possible beyond October 2016.

The Head responded to a query from Councillor B Deering regarding the advanced stages of the emerging District Plan, the issue of unresolved objections and the importance of compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  The Head confirmed to Councillor M Casey that the impact on Skellies Wood would be more positive than negative and this woodland would be protected and managed in line with conditions to ensure enhanced protection and management than was currently the case.

The Head concluded by referring to a number of relevant considerations including the sustainability of the proposed schemes, the provision of education infrastructure and the ongoing requirement of a 5 years supply of housing land.

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 applications 3/14/2143/OP and 3/14/2145/OP, had East Herts Council been in a position to determine these planning applications, it would have granted planning permission for both applications, subject to an appropriate range of conditions and the completion of legal agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure that appropriate infrastructure matters were addressed.