Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Hayter addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Fuselli and Mr Tarzey spoke for the application.  Councillor Davies addressed the Committee in objection to the application on behalf of Stanstead Abbotts Parish Council.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/2296/OUT, subject to a legal agreement, outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor M Allen, as the local ward Member, commented on development not being seen in a negative perspective.  He emphasised that the Authority considered all development proactively.  He stated that whilst this development was well planned and well laid out, there were some significant issues.  He referred to affordable housing and the fact that the site was located in the green belt.  He concluded that more detail was required before Members could make an appropriate decision.

The Head referred to the late representations summary and additional information regarding suggested conditions should the application be approved.  Members were referred to additional commentary from the Economic Development Manager and the Environmental Strategy and Development Manager.

The Head stated that, given the outline nature of the application and the fact that Section 106 matters were a matter for discussion, delegated authority was being sought for Officers to amend the financial provisions in any legal agreement.  Members were advised that a key consideration was the reuse of previously developed land in the green belt.  The Head detailed the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) description of previously developed land and Members were reminded that such redevelopment was not inappropriate in the green belt.  Members were referred to page 9 of the report regarding openness and the green belt as well as the volumes of the proposed development in paragraph 10.4.

The Head reminded Members that marketing of the site was always encouraged where there would be a loss of employment land.  He referred to a less than ideal policy scenario that had been presented in that the site had not been advertised as an employment site by the applicant.  He also referred to the shortcomings of the buildings and the regulations around energy efficiency.  Officers had acknowledged the lack of affordable housing and were in agreement with the applicant’s viability assessment that the costs of remediation works made the provision of affordable housing unviable.  The NPPF stipulated that planning authorities should not seek to apply policy requirements where these rendered development proposals unviable.

Members were reminded of the NPPF requirement that where there was not a 5 years supply of housing land, applications should be approved unless there would be significant and demonstrable harm.  The Head concluded that this application was for an additional 30 housing units to be added to the housing supply chain in East Herts.

Councillor S Bull commented that developments of over 10 dwellings qualified for affordable housing.  He also referred to the issues of sustainability and car parking.  Councillor P Ruffles referred to the status of the employment land and commented on the industrial past of Stanstead Abbotts. 

Councillor J Jones stressed that there had to be some affordable housing on this site.  He referred to the potential lost benefit of jobs for the local economy.  Councillor M Casey stated that the applicant should be required to market the site for 6 months before this application could be supported. 

Councillor K Warnell referred to the issue of viability and stated that he believed the application was contrary to policies HSG3, HSG4 and EDE2 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.  He expressed concerns regarding the 0% affordable housing proposed as part of this application.  Councillor J Goodeve commented that viability on this site could be examined in the context on increasing house prices and whether affordable housing could be provided in future.

The Head confirmed that this was not a designated employment site.  He stated however, that policy EDE2 required that action was taken to ascertain whether there was any likelihood of the site being retained for employment before planning permission could be granted for other uses.  Members must consider that although this scheme was not policy compliant, was the proposed development likely to cause harm that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

At the invitation of the Legal Services Manager, the Head reiterated that redevelopment of previously developed land was not inappropriate in the green belt.  The NPPF was quite clear that redevelopment for any other use was acceptable. 

Councillor J Jones proposed and Councillor M Allen seconded, a motion that application 3/16/2296/OUT be refused on the grounds that the proposal would result in the loss of an existing employment site which would be to the detriment of the economic well-being of the District and was therefore contrary to Policy EDE2 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and Section 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  The proposal also failed to make adequate provision for affordable housing and was therefore contrary to Policies HSG3 and HSG4 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and Section 6 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 3/16/2296/OUT, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.        The proposal would result in the loss of an existing employment site which would be to the detriment of the economic well-being of the District. The potential of the retention of the site for continued employment use has not been fully assessed.  As a result, the proposals are contrary to Policy EDE2 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and Section 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.        The proposal fails to make adequate provision for affordable housing, and therefore, whilst contributing to housing supply, fails to meet the range of identified need.  As a result, the proposals are contrary to Policies HSG3 and HSG4 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and Section 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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.