Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/17/0223/FUL, subject to a legal agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head summarised the application and detailed the relevant planning history.  He confirmed that 2 of the buildings on the site had been converted to residential use under recent permitted development legislation.  He stated when sites were developed in a piecemeal manner, the Council’s policies sought to ensure that the site was considered as a whole in respect of affordable housing and financial contributions.

Members were advised that the details of the County Council financial contributions were subject to further consideration following confirmation from the County Council that contributions for education and youth services only were to be required.  Delegated authority was therefore being sought to resolve the final detail of this with the applicant.

The Head confirmed that the site was located within the built up envelope of the town and further development was therefore considered to be acceptable.  The proposed development was very similar in overall design and appearance to the rest of the site and the built form would sit comfortably with other developments in the immediate vicinity.

The Head advised that the affordable housing contribution was considered to be acceptable by the Council’s housing managers and would work well as regards future management purposes.  He referred to the commentary in the report regarding the reduction in the headline parking figure that would normally be sought on a development of 41 units.  Officers felt 42 spaces would be acceptable given that the site was sustainable and was located within a reasonable distance from a variety of services and facilities, such as schools and employment spaces as well as the facilities in the town centre.

Officers had recommended the application for approval due to a favourable balance of considerations.  Members were advised that Bishop’s Stortford Town Council had now objected to the application on the grounds of a difficult site access and overdevelopment.

Councillor M Casey expressed concerns regarding the car parking provision.  He commented that with parking provision of 1 space per flat any additional vehicles would end up being parked on Parsonage Lane.  He believed that the scheme was 12 spaces short in terms of car parking provision.

Councillor J Jones referred to the issue of airport parking on roads in this part of Bishop’s Stortford.  He commented on whether overspill parking resulting from this scheme would exacerbate parking problems.  He confirmed that he was content with the position regarding affordable housing.

Councillor K Warnell confirmed that he was happy with the proposed development but emphasised that he was also concerned over the lack of visitor parking and general shortfall of parking provision on this site.  He commented on whether a significantly larger amount of parking spaces could be sought than the number of units being proposed by this application.

The Head advised that the submitted plans appeared to indicate that there was scope for additional parking on site.  He suggested that delegated authority be given to Officers to further explore the potential for this with the applicant given he was aware that the applicant was keen to resolve matters regarding affordable housing in a timely manner without having the application reported back to the Committee.  Members were advised that Officers felt that an additional 6 spaces could easily be achieved on this site.

The Chairman referred to significant confusion regarding car parking and affordable housing provision.  He made comments regarding the reasonableness and conduct of Officers giving further consideration to matters in advance of the Development Management Committee to seek to resolve matters which might be raised at the meeting and thereafter being granted delegated authority to deal with them.  He believed that a clearer approach would be to defer the scheme to allow a further dialogue to take place between Officers and the applicant before the matter was determined.

The Head reminded Members to be mindful of the risks regarding the withdrawal of the affordable housing provision should the application be delayed by a deferral of permission.  As part of the further Member debate around the issue of car parking, the Head advised Members that an element of visitor parking was accommodated within the Council’s adopted parking standards.

Councillor K Warnell withdrew his earlier comment regarding whether significantly larger amount of parking spaces could be sought than the number of units being proposed by this application.

Councillor M Freeman stated that he was conscious that this was a public meeting and he sought to publically disassociate himself from the Chairman’s previous comments regarding action taken by Officers.  Members continued a general debate in respect of car parking standards and affordable housing.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee agreed that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control to determine the application.  Any scheme, as might be approved, shall provide a minimum of 56 car parking spaces.  The Committee also delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Building Control to determine the funding elements and the final amounts to be secured through a Section 106 Planning Obligation agreement and to apply appropriate conditions.

RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/17/0223/FUL, authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control to determine the application and any scheme, as might be approved, shall provide a minimum of 56 car parking spaces; and

(B)  authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control to determine the funding elements and the final amounts to be secured through a Section 106 Planning Obligation agreement and to apply appropriate conditions.