Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/17/1867/FUL, 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.  Members were referred to the additional commentary in the late representations summary as well as the comments of Hertford Town Council circulated by email.  The Head advised that none of the additional comments had altered the recommendation.

The Head advised that, in green belt terms, the engineering operation was appropriate and significant weight has been applied to the extant permission.  Hertfordshire Highways were content that the highway network could cope with the additional loads and Officers were satisfied that the landscape impact would be acceptable and had therefore recommended the application for approval.

Mr Wansell addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Ms Osborn spoke for the application.  Councillor S Rutland-Barsby addressed the Committee as a local ward Member.

The Interim Legal Services Manager commented on a decision taken by Basildon District Council that had been quashed on the basis that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) must be carried out due to the scale of the waste due to be deposited.  Members were advised that guidance was now much clearer in terms of what waste could be deposited on a site for the purposes of a golf course.

Members were advised that an EIA would not assist with the issue of vehicle movements as that matter would be addressed via a transport assessment and Highways Officers had indicated they were content to abide by the 3 year old assessment.  The Interim Legal Services Manager concluded that Members must determine what they hoped to achieve by any further assessment.

The Head confirmed that Officers had assessed the proposals and were of the view that whilst there would be environmental affects these were not significant enough to justify an EIA.  Councillor J Goodeve commented that much of the transport assessment dated from 2010 and a significant number of new properties had been built, including a new primary school at Simon Balle and on that basis, the traffic study was deficient and needed to be repeated.

Councillor D Andrews expressed concerns regarding detritus and mud that had previously obscured road markings and signage on Ware Road.  He was concerned for the pedestrians and school children using footpaths near Hertford Heath to access Simon Balle School and other schools.  He concluded that his primary concerns centred on the issue of the greenbelt, buildings and openness.  He queried why 400,000 tonnes of material was required for the construction of a golf course.

Councillor M Casey commented on whether Officers had any evidence to suggest that the intention of the applicant was to build a golf course or whether this was a front for a waste disposal operation.  Councillor B Deering commented on the likely number of lorry movements per day to this site.  He emphasised the policy position in that very special circumstances did not exist unless it could be demonstrated that the harm to the Green Belt was clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Councillor P Boylan stated that he considered that 240 lorry movements over a 12 hour day or a movement every 3 minutes was a little heavy.  He referred to the comments of HCC Minerals and Waste as detailed in paragraph 5.7 of the report submitted.  The Committee debated the conditions detailed in the report in respect of lorry movements.  Officers responded to Members’ comments by referring in detail to a number of conditions in the report as well as the comments of the Highway Authority and the Landscape Officer.

Councillor D Andrews proposed and Councillor J Goodeve seconded, a motion that application 3/17/1867/FUL be refused on the grounds that the proposed development would be detrimental to the openness and the visual amenity of the Metropolitan Green Belt and was therefore contrary to national planning guidance in section 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  The proposal development would also give rise to significant additional traffic movements and would thereby be prejudicial to highway safety and a potential danger to other road users and pedestrians.

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 3/17/1867/FUL, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.           The proposed development by reason of the amount of importation and associated land level changes, would be detrimental to the openness and the visual amenity of the Metropolitan Green Belt contrary to national planning guidance in section 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework

2.           The proposal development would give rise to significant additional traffic movements, and would thereby be prejudicial to highway safety and a potential danger to other road users and pedestrians.