Decisions

Part 1 – Funding approval to support a proposed future direction of travel for Council managed leisure facilities.

Part 2 – Funding consideration for a proposal to develop the leisure and sports provision in Bishop’s Stortford.

That it be noted that (A) the Head of Operations in consultation with the Head of Legal and Democratic Services negotiates the terms and conditions of a contract extension with the current leisure provider;

(B)     the principles of the physical activity strategy being including within the vision for leisure facilities outlined in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of the report submitted before a further detailed revision is produced after public consultation, be endorsed; and

(C)    the extension of the Leisure Task and Finish Group to support the development of the leisure service specification in relation to key service policy considerations such as concessionary pricing policy, health and well-being and community development, be endorsed.

That (A) the recommendations and modifications made by the Independent Examiner of the Bishop’s Stortford Town Council Neighbourhood Plan for All Saints, Central, South and part of Thorley, as detailed at Essential Reference Paper ‘C’ to the report submitted, be received and considered;

(B)     the Bishop’s Stortford Town Council Neighbourhood Plan for All Saints, Central, South and part of Thorley, be modified in accordance with the Examiner’s recommendations as detailed in Essential Reference Paper ‘C’, with additional modifications recommended by Officers, as detailed at Essential Reference Paper ‘D’; and

(C)    the Bishop’s Stortford Town Council Neighbourhood Plan for All Saints, Central, South and part of Thorley, as modified, should proceed to a referendum.

That the application for the designation of a Bengeo Neighbourhood Area, submitted by Hertford Town Council, be supported.

That the risk management controls implemented be approved.

That (A) the land comprising the property identified in the report submitted, be acquired by East Herts Council either with the voluntarily agreement of the owner or through a compulsory purchase process, with the purchase not proceeding only if the owner makes arrangements, to the Council’s satisfaction, prior to acquisition for the property to return it to residential use, such that the full costs can be met from (i) onward disposal of the property, (ii) reimbursement from the sub-regional PLACE (Private Lease Agreements for Converting Empties) programme and (iii) existing budgets, with any future need to allocate additional resources subject to future Member approval;

(B)     should a voluntary agreement to purchase the property be made, authority be delegated to the Property Manager, acting in consultation with the Head of Housing & Health, to carry out the necessary processes to acquire the property for an acceptable consideration;

(C)    should compulsory purchase be required:

(a) authority be delegated to the Head of Housing & Health to make a compulsory purchase order to be known as the District Council of East Hertfordshire (Property X [address to be given in the order], Bishop’s Stortford) Compulsory Purchase Order, under Section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 in respect of the land and property indicated on a map marked with the name of the Compulsory Purchase Order;

(b) arrangements be made for the common seal of the Council to be affixed to the necessary documents;

(c) authority be delegated to the Head of Housing & Health in consultation with the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to make an application to the Secretary of State for confirmation of the Order;

(d) authority be delegated to the Head of Housing & Health in consultation with the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to confirm the Order following the passing of this responsibility from the Secretary of State;

(e) authority be delegated to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to prepare for a Public Inquiry and defend the Order should objections be made and the matter requires a public inquiry to proceed;
 

(f)  authority be delegated to the Property Manager, acting in consultation with the Head of Housing & Health, to acquire the necessary interests in the land and property included in the confirmed compulsory purchase order by means of a general vesting declaration, for an acceptable consideration or on terms ordered by the Lands Tribunal; and

(D)    the property, if acquired, be sold on in the open market as soon as practicable and to enable this, the Property Manager be required to (a) arrange for such essential works to the property while it is in the Council’s possession so as to deal with any immediate issues of safety and security, (b) abate environmental nuisances, (c) prepare the property for marketing and (d) dispose of the freehold interest in the property, on the open market, by most suitable method to achieve best consideration on terms and conditions to be agreed with the Head of Strategic Finance.

Mr Stacey addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/2847/FUL, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor D Andrews addressed the Committee as the local ward Member.  He stated that the proposed development would only be visible from Dowsetts Lane in the winter once leaves had fallen.  He referred to the fact that the neighbours and the wider community did not find this application objectionable.

The Head summarised the application and detailed the relevant planning history.  He referred to the site being located in a rural area of the District and this did restrict the potential granting of planning permission for buildings and uses which the Councils policies set out were inappropriate in this location.  Officers had reached a balanced view on the potential introduction of a building of a significant size into the environment in this location. 

The Head referred to the fundamental planning policy matters and concluded that the positive impacts and benefits of the application did not outweigh the harm to the rural area and the application should be refused.  Councillor D Oldridge referred to the size of the proposed development and stated that an approval would set a precedent for other developments on this scale.

Councillor D Andrews stated that some of the responses from the statutory consultees were particularly helpful such as that received from the Flood Authority.  He commented that the congregation was successful and their needs were substantial.  He further commented that this site could be easily accessed from Hertford, Puckeridge, Standon and Ware.  He emphasised that Dowsetts Farm was of a similar size but was more obtrusive and less attractive than the proposed scheme.

Councillor P Ruffles stated that he was sympathetic towards granting planning permission.  He commented that the local element had been overplayed and he felt that this application fitted in with the local rural environment.  He suggested that suitable landscaping conditions could be imposed.

Councillor M Casey commented that the proposal was more than twice the size of the existing meeting hall and he referred to the proposed parking area for 177 cars.  He queried the size of the congregation as well as how many of the brethren would travel from outside the local area.  Councillor J Goodeve expressed concerns over the sustainability of the location if people were travelling from as far afield as Broxbourne, Cheshunt and Cuffley.  Councillor K Warnell commented that the application would be of little benefit to the local community.

The Head referred to the additional commentary in the late representations.  He stated that the policies in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 were designed to support different types of development.  He stated that in this area policies restricted development to limited small scale facilities for leisure and sports.  Members were reminded that each Committee decision had an impact on any future decisions Members had to make on applications in this particular area.

The Head stated that this was an unusual form of development and the benefits had to be weighed against the harm and Officers felt that, in this case, the harm was more significant than the benefits in planning policy terms.

Councillor D Andrews proposed and Councillor R Brunton seconded, a motion that application 3/16/2847/FUL be granted on the basis that, on balance, the merits of the application and the social advantages outweighed the disadvantages and authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control to formulate an appropriate set of conditions.

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 3/16/2847/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to conditions and authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control to formulate an appropriate set of conditions.