Agenda item

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/19/1689/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 application and detailed the relevant planning history.  He said that the application was essentially the same as the application refused by the Committee on 17^th July 2019.  Members were referred to paragraph 1.5 of the report for the additional information and amendments that had been submitted and proposed.

The Service Manager (Development Management), on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, referred to additional biodiversity information, a pedestrian crossing point with tactile paving and a swept path for 12.1 metre refuse vehicles.  He said that the reported response of the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) was as per the previous application.  The LLFA had objected to the current application advising that infiltration testing was required to overcome the objection.

The Service Manager (Development Management), on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, said that there had been no changes in respect of the drainage situation.  He advised that additional testing on site regarding infiltration was not currently possible as the site was not accessible for additional testing.  In the circumstances, the previous LLFA case Officer had accepted that this matter could be addressed by condition.

Members were advised that a very comprehensive pre-commencement condition had been applied in respect of surface water drainage on the basis that this must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.

The Service Manager (Development Management), on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, confirmed that the applicant had agreed to pre-commencement conditions.  Members were advised that paragraph 8.43 on page 38 of the report incorrectly stated that a planning obligation would satisfy a Section 106 test of reasonableness.  The wording should have stated “would not satisfy”.

Members’ attention was drawn to paragraph 1.6 of the report and they were advised that the principal issues for consideration were highways safety and the ecological impact and all other details were substantially the same.  Mrs Hind addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Shrimplin spoke for the application.  Mr Cox addressed the Committee on behalf of Stanstead Abbots Parish Council.  Councillor J Dumont addressed the Committee as the local ward Member.

Councillor P Ruffles said that he would welcome comment from Officers in respect of the combined foul and surface water sewer.  He acknowledged that there would be a big change in the nature of this site in terms of ecology.  In response to comments by Councillor P Ruffles and Councillor B Deering, the Service Manager (Development Management), provided some further clarity for Members.

The Service Manager (Development Management), on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, confirmed that the provisions of the pre-commencement condition stipulated that development could not commence until the drainage issues were resolved.  The LLFA had written to Officers to confirm that they did not recommend refusal of the planning application.  He said that as regards the foul and surface water combined sewer, it was for Thames Water to provide the capacity for the proposed development.  He also confirmed that the Conservation Officer had stated that there would be no adverse impact on the conservation area.

The Service Manager (Development Management), on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, confirmed to Councillor R Buckmaster that the conditions could be amended to preserve the provision of bird and bat boxes on the site in the event of any change of ownership. 

Councillor S Bull commented on the pedestrian footpath at the Western End of Hoddesdon Road.  He also referred to the access being on a bend of a busy road.  The Service Manager (Development Management), on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, advised that only personal injury accidents were recorded and there had no recorded accidents from this location in the last 5 years.

Councillor R Fernando said that there were small but significant positive changes to the proposed development.  He commented on the proposed pedestrian crossing and whether trees would be lost.  The Service Manager (Development Management), on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, confirmed that Officers were not aware of additional trees being removed other than those proposed for removal by the application and the trees on the site would be protected by the conservation area.  The plans for the pedestrian crossing were included with the application.

Councillor I Kemp said that traffic calming could be utilised to slow the traffic and improve highway safety.  The Service Manager stated that this could not be conditioned as the highway authority had not objected to the application.

It was moved by Councillor S Bull and seconded by Councillor I Kemp that the application be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/18/1689/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted.