Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/1228/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Service Manager (Development Management), on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, summarised the full application and detailed the relevant planning history.

Ms Alderman addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Shrimplin spoke for the application.  Councillor N Cox addressed the Committee on behalf of St Margarets Parish Council. 

Councillor J Dumont addressed the Committee as the local Ward Member and summarised residents’ concerns.

Councillor D Andrews said Highways were satisfied with the design and that Thames Water had not responded to the consultation.  The trees would need to be surveyed to establish whether protection under a TPO was appropriate.  He was concerned about accessibility and the collection of refuse.  He felt there was sufficient space to overcome accessibility issues.

The Service Manager advised that he was not aware of any other developments where private waste arrangement were in place and that there was a condition regarding the protection of trees relating to a biodiversity plan. 

Members debated at length issues in relation to highways, visibility surveys and how a private refuse collection arrangement would work.  Councillor B Crystall said he was concerned about the application from an ecological viewpoint and asked whether an assessment of the site had been carried out before a request for planning permission.

Councillor S Bull said the village did not have a Neighbourhood Plan in place and that he was concerned at the suggestion of a private arrangement for waste collection.  The Service Manager explained that it was unusual for a full ecological assessment to be submitted in relation to a minor application and that the site was not a designated wildlife site of ecological significance.

Councillor T Beckett explained that he had visited the site and witnessed cars travelling at speed.  He questioned the timing of letters to residents and said that the developer should be requested to widen the road. 

The Service Manager explained that there was an error in relation to advising residents of an incorrect date for Development Management Committee but this had been quickly rectified.  He suggested that Members could resolve to defer consideration of the application or delegate the decision to Officers once the issue in relation to waste management had been resolved.

The Legal Services Manager explained that a decision to defer could impact on the target date from the view point of non-determination and the possible submission of an appeal by the applicant.  She further explained that there was no evidence from an accident viewpoint and that the Highways viewpoint had been given.

Councillor I Kemp said that the application should be deferred to enable further consultation to take place in relation to the need to widen the road, to provide a pedestrian crossing / introduction of traffic calming measures and safety refuge.

Councillor R Fernando raised the issue of habitable rooms on the ground floor and accessibility issues.  The Service Manager said the location was in Flood Zone 2 and that there were other properties along that strip with living accommodation on the first floor.

It was moved by Councillor B Deering and seconded by Councillor P Ruffles that the application be deferred. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared LOST.

It was moved by Councillor T Beckett and seconded by Councillor B Crystall that the application be refused on highways, ecological and safety grounds.  After being put to the meeting and a vote taken the 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 3/18/1228/FUL, planning permission be refused for the following reasons.

 1.   The proposed development fails to demonstrate that it acceptable in highways safety terms as required by Policy TRA2 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.

2.    The proposed development fails to demonstrate that there was no harm to ecological interests contrary to Policies NE2 and NE3 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.

(There was a short adjournment of the meeting at 8:20pm to allow members of the public to leave the meeting.  The meeting recommenced at 8:25pm)