Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Webb addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Stretton spoke for the application.  Councillor Mrs Veater addressed the Committee on behalf of Braughing Parish Council.  Councillor P Boylan addressed the Committee as the adjacent ward Member.  Following this, he sat separately to the Committee and took no part in the debate or vote.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/17/0239/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head summarised the application and referred Members to the additional representations summary.  He referred in particular to the additional commentary regarding the Highway Authority in that they had maintained their position that the application was acceptable in terms of highways safety.  The Head summarised a number of submissions that had been received following the publication of the Committee report.

Members were advised of the usual set of circumstances regarding the out of date nature of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 in relation to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  The District Plan had not yet been examined in public and as such could not be given full weight in decision making by the Development Management Committee.  The Authority remained in a position of being unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of land for housing.

Members were reminded of the high test that had been set in that unless it could be demonstrated that there would be significant and demonstrable harm, applications for sustainable new residential development should be supported.

The Head referred to the unfavourable characteristics of Hull Lane which had been acknowledged by the Highway Authority.  Members were advised however, that the Highway Authority did not consider the impact of the application to be severe in highway terms.  Members were cautioned against making comparisons with other sites as their characteristics might be different and should not be taken into account in relation to this application.

The Head referred to the impact on the character and appearance of the area and reminded Members to weigh up all of the issues and opinions of advisers in their debate.  They should pay particular attention to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.  Officers had recommended approval as the benefits outweighed the harmful impacts.

Members debated the matter of Hull Lane being narrow and difficult for vehicles to ingress and egress safely as well as the issue of sub-standard site lines at the junction of Hull Lane and the B1368.  Members felt that opportunities for accidents would increase at this already dangerous junction.

Councillor M Allen sought and was given clarification regarding the views of the Landscape Officer and the Conservation Officer.  Councillor J Goodeve commented on why the access had not been from the B1368 for this site.  Councillor S Bull referred to all of the objections in the report and stated that the height of the proposed development would be overbearing over all existing properties in the area.

Councillor B Deering stated that the application flew in the face of strong local opinion and a different type of local development should come forward that was more in keeping with the local Neighbourhood Plan.  The Head stated that the junction referred to by Members did not have an accident record.  Accidents had been recorded on Green End and 30 metres to the north of the Hull Lane junction.

As the proposed development was set back from the road, the visual impact would be more limited and Officers were unable to identify the harmful impact as a result.

Councillor M Casey proposed and Councillor S Bull seconded, a motion that application 3/17/0239/FUL be refused on the grounds that the proposed development would exacerbate the current poor characteristics of Hull Lane and in particular, its limited width in the vicinity of the Green End junction and the limited sight lines at that junction.  The proposals would have a detrimental, harmful and severe impact on current poor road safety conditions and were therefore contrary to policy TRA2 of the Council’s pre-submission District Plan 2016 and the relevant requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.  The proposed development was out of keeping with the landscape context and character of Hull Lane and would appear as an overbearing form of development that was contrary to policies ENV1 and OSV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/17/0239/FUL, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.        The proposed development, by virtue of the generation of additional vehicular traffic on Hull Lane and the junction of it with Green End, Braughing, will exacerbate the impact of the current poor characteristics of the Hull Lane roadway which comprise its limited width in the vicinity of the Green End junction and the limited sight lines at that junction.  As a result, the proposals will have a detrimental, harmful and severe impact on current poor road safety conditions and are therefore contrary to policy TRA2 of the Council’s pre-submission District Plan 2016 and to the relevant requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (para. 32).

2.        The proposed development by virtue of its size and scale is considered to be out of keeping with and will therefore fail to contribute to or assimilate well within the landscape context and character found along this part of Hull Lane.  It will appear as an incongruous and overbearing form of development.  As a result the proposals are contrary to policies ENV1 and OSV1 of the East Herts Local Plan (Second Review) April 2007 and contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (section 7).

Summary of Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, East Herts Council has considered, in a positive and proactive manner, whether the planning objections to this proposal could be satisfactorily resolved within the statutory period for determining the application. However, for the reasons set out in this decision notice, the proposal is not considered to achieve an acceptable and sustainable development in accordance with the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.