Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/0432/FUL, subject to a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head referred to the additional representations summary and detailed the relevant additional commentary.  The Head summarised the findings in respect of readings that been taken regarding background noise levels.  Members were also advised that a 543 signature objecting petition had been submitted.

The Head detailed the background to the application and summarised the main objections.  The Head referred Members to pages 53 – 79 of the report submitted for the main issues.  The Head confirmed that Officers considered that the harmful impacts of the development were outweighed by the benefits.

Mr Kratz and Mr Evans addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Fannon spoke for the application.  Councillor J Wyllie addressed the Committee on behalf of Bishop’s Stortford Town Council.  Councillor D Abbott addressed the Committee as a local ward Member.

Councillor D Oldridge commented on the lack of lighting for the Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) and the opening hours of the car park.  He queried the status of the land in terms of whether this was green belt or a brownfield site.

Councillor M Casey commented on the sequence of events in respect of development of Old River Lane should this application be approved.  Councillor B Deering also referred to the enabling role of this application in the context of wider development proposals.  He queried the enabling role of this application when the details of the application for Old River Lane were not known.  Councillor J Jones posed a number of questions in respect of the proposed MUGA in terms of management, acoustic fencing and hours of use.

Councillors R Brunton and P Boylan commented that the proposed affordable housing provision should be more in keeping with the Council’s policies, given that the Authority was the applicant.  Councillor P Boylan queried whether the amendments referred to by the Landscape Advisor in paragraph 8.54 of the report had been made.  He failed to see how the application would protect or enhance the conservation area and he felt that the proposed electric charging facilities were insufficient.

The Head referred to the Bishop’s Stortford Town Centre Planning Framework in respect of the vitality and viability of the Town.  Members were advised that this document could be given weight in decision making and this included the aspiration for the future comprehensive redevelopment of the site known as Old River Lane.

The Head confirmed that the parking currently in place at The Causeway would need to be relocated if the site at Old River Lane was to be available for a mixed use redevelopment including an Arts Centre type venue.  Members could give the aspiration of the applicant, in this case the Council, to achieve redevelopment of the Old River Lane site weight in decision making even though full details of those proposals were not currently available.

The Head confirmed that it was completely acceptable for the Authority to act as both the applicant and the decision maker on a planning application.  He stated that Officers separate to those in the planning service, had formulated the proposals and  Planning Officers had provided advice through its normal working relationship with applicants. 

Members were advised that condition 40 in the report now submitted restricted the hours of use of the car park to 7 am to 11 pm to minimise the impact on nearby residents.  The Head also referred to the conditions intended to mitigate the impact of the MUGA.

Members were advised that the only aspect of the development that would encroach into the green belt was the turn left lane exiting from the car park.  The Head referred to the social housing and the likelihood that the application would be unviable with a provision of 40% affordable housing, or indeed, a level lower than 20%.

The Head confirmed that the applicant had explored ways to minimise the impact of the proposed development by proposing high quality materials that fitted into the landscape and surrounding area.  The proposed car park would not be open sided and it was intended that 20 electric charging points would be made available.

Councillor D Andrews commented on the proposed MUGA in the context that there was already an adequate games area in the form of a well utilised field.  He believed that more electric charging stations should be included and he sought clarity in respect of the affordable housing.

Members were advised that up to 40% affordable housing was sought wherever possible and an independent viability assessment had been carried out on behalf of the Council as Local Planning Authority.  This had indicated however, that this discrete scheme was unviable with anything more than 0% provision.  Members were advised however, that the applicant had acknowledged the Council’s aspirations and had offered 20% affordable housing provision.

The Head confirmed that it would not be unreasonable to ask for more information to be submitted and agreed in respect of infrastructure for more charging points for electric vehicles and this could be covered by conditions.

The Head commented on the policy positions in respect of sustainable transport and the accessibility of pedestrian controlled crossings.  He also referred to the noise assessments carried out in respect of this application.  The Interim Legal Services Manager commented on a number of matters, currently proposed to be included in a Section 106 agreement, that, could be converted to conditions based on recent advice from the planning inspectorate.

Councillor B Deering proposed and Councillor M Allen seconded, a motion that in respect of application 3/18/0432/FUL, planning permission be deferred to enable Officers to seek further information from the applicant in relation to the following matters:

·                        the provision of Affordable Housing;

·                        noise assessment matters;

·                        the specification of the proposed MUGA;

·                        the extent of provision of electric vehicle charging points to be installed;

·                        the proposed hours of use of the car park;

·                        the scale of pedestrian movements to and from the proposed car park and how they will be accommodated in relation to crossing Link Road; and

·                        the relationship of the proposals to wider development proposals of land to the south of Link Road (Old River Lane).

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, there being an equality of votes, this motion was declared CARRIED on the Chairman’s casting vote.  The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/18/0432/FUL, planning permission be deferred to enable Officers to seek further information from the applicant in relation to the following matters:

·               the provision of Affordable Housing;

·               noise assessment matters;

·               the specification of the proposed MUGA;

·               the extent of provision of electric vehicle charging points to be installed;

·               the proposed hours of use of the car park;

·               the scale of pedestrian movements to and from the proposed car park and how they will be accommodated in relation to crossing Link Road; and

·               the relationship of the proposals to wider development proposals of land to the south of Link Road (Old River Lane).