Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor B Wrangles.  It was noted that Councillor T Page was in attendance as substitute for Councillor B Wrangles.

The Chairman advised that Officers would circulate a new training schedule to Members once the Committee’s membership was known in the 2012/13 civic year.

The Chairman also advised that the following application had been withdrawn from the agenda:

·              3/11/1863/FP – Change of use from public house with letting rooms to residential dwelling at Kick And Dicky, Wellpond Green, Standon, SG11 1NL for Mr Aspin.

Councillor G Jones declared a personal and prejudicial interest in application 3/12/0141/FP, in that he was a Governor of St Elizabeth’s College and the application related to the access to the college building.  He left the room during consideration of this matter.

Councillor T Page declared personal interests in applications 3/11/2191/FP and 3/11/2192/FP, in that his daughter had attended Bishop’s Stortford College some 12 years ago.

Councillor S Rutland-Barsby declared a personal interest in application 3/12/0141/FP, in that St Elizabeth’s School and Home was one of her nominated charities in her capacity as Chairman of the Authority.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 21 March 2011.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 March 2012 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Recommended for Refusal.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/1615/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/1615/FP, planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Refusal.

Mr Martin Ledger addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0108/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director referred Members to the additional representations schedule.  Councillor S Bull stated that the site was within the green belt.  He expressed a degree of sympathy with the applicant but commented that he was unaware of any policies that could be used to overturn the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor J Taylor commented that the application constituted inappropriate development within the green belt and there were no special circumstances for approving the application.

Councillor A Burlton stated that the viewpoint of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) was unrealistic as a dwelling house could not easily be removed should the stud business cease and a use of similar standing not replace the business at Ashendene Stud.  He commented that the application should be refused.

The Director stressed that previous national guidance and the Councils policies sought to encourage temporary style accommodation in such situations, for the very reason that it would be unreasonable to expect a brick built house to be removed if the associated business ceased to exist.  Members were reminded that this issue was largely hypothetical in relation to this application as there was no current basis to speculate that the use would not remain and, in any event, Officers had recommended refusal.

Councillor Mrs R Cheswright stated that approving this application would set a precedent in the District.  She referred to other sites in East Herts where mobile homes had been replaced with permanent brick-built houses.

Councillor J Taylor stated that a planning permission for a mobile home was not a prerequisite for the approval of a permanent dwelling.  She reiterated that there were no special circumstances for approving this application.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0108/FP, planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to the applicant entering into a deed of variation in respect of the existing legal agreement previously agreed under LPA reference 3/09/1370/FP to include reference to application 3/11/2096/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Director highlighted an error in the report in that the proposal did not involve any additional bedrooms but involved a reorganisation of the first floor accommodation to create five larger bedrooms, not four as detailed in paragraph 1.2 of the report now submitted.

Councillor Mrs R Cheswright expressed her regret over the problems that had been encountered in respect of this site, in particular, the numerous changes to the scheme since the approval of planning permission.  She emphasised the local frustration in relation to this site and commented that, had all the changes been presented to Members as part of the original application, the Committee may not have approved planning permission.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that, subject to the applicant entering into a deed of variation in respect of the existing legal agreement previously agreed under LPA reference 3/09/1370/FP to include reference to this application, application 3/11/2096/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that, subject to the applicant entering into a deed of variation in respect of the existing legal agreement previously agreed under LPA reference 3/09/1370/FP to include reference to application 3/11/2096/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0141/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0141/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0245/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0245/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/1941/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor A Burlton commented that the applicant should be reminded that applications should be submitted to the Authority in advance of works being carried out, particularly in light of the size and status of Paradise Wildlife Park.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/1941/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

Dr Kamilia El Farra addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.  Mr Jeremy Gladwin spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/2191/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor G Jones acknowledged that Bishop’s Stortford College had no intention to increase its intake as a result of this application.  He referred to the distance between the proposed development and nearby residential dwellings.  He also noted that nearby dwellings were located higher than the application site so should not be overlooked.

Councillor G Jones was supportive of the application.  He concurred, in particular, with the Officer’s conclusions detailed at the end of the report now submitted.

Councillor J Taylor refuted the concerns raised by neighbours, in particular relating to traffic, loss of outlook, overbearing impact and loss of privacy due to overlooking from the proposed building and car park.  Councillor J Taylor also refuted the concerns relating to potential noise nuisance caused by the car park.  She stated that the application should be approved.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/2191/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Greg Burns addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.  Mr Jeremy Gladwin spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/2192/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor G Jones stated that he had noted the comments of the objecting speaker regarding the extended car parking spaces not being shielded by fencing.  He commented however, that the additional spaces were further away from the neighbouring dwellings so there should be less associated noise.

Councillor G Jones commented that residents would welcome the tidying up of traffic movements around the site and he would hold the college to account in respect of the pledge that there would be no increase in student intake.  He concluded that he was prepared to support this application.

In response to a query from Councillor Mrs R Cheswright, the Director stressed that it was very difficult to say there would never be any overlooking of neighbouring residential properties.  However, Members were advised that Officers had considered the distance between the site and neighbouring dwellings and their view was that any overlooking would be minimal and would not justify a refusal of planning permission.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/2192/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Richard Cave addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.  Mr Ian Abrams spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0152/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor G Jones commented on whether the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had resulted in a shift in approach in respect of sustainability.  He believed that the NPPF stated that applications that failed to improve the quality and character of an area should not be approved.

The Director advised that introductory text to policy HSG7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007, stated that properties that were capable of economic repair should be retained in the interests of sustainability.  However, these words do not appear in the policy.  Members were advised that the new NPPF indicated that sustainable development should be approved.

The Director advised that Officers had been of the view that this application was not of a poor design and the policies in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 were, in principle, supportive of such development.

Councillor T Page expressed concerns relating to the recommendation for refusal from the Landscape Officer.  In particular, he was concerned in respect of the impact of the stand alone garage and the overall negative impact of the proposed development on the street scene.

Councillor M Newman commented that he viewed this application as very much a like for like replacement of the existing dwelling.  He stated however, that any new house should be built to the very latest standards in respect of environmental insulation and water usage.

Councillor Mrs R Cheswright raised concerns relating to loss of light and overlooking from a property that was going to be 3 stories high.  The Director stated that Officers felt that the use of obscure glazing, the distance between the proposed dwelling and adjacent properties and also the location of trees meant that the impact of the application was judged by Officers to be acceptable.

In response to further concerns from Councillor Mrs R Cheswright relating to the garage roof height and also the pitch of the garage roof, the Director advised that the garage was proposed as a ground floor space and Officers could add conditions relating to the implementation of further north facing windows.  Members were further advised that any windows in the garage would be likely to require planning permission if they were of a dormer style.

In response to further comments from Councillor G Jones, the Director stated that condition 9 could be amended so that there were no further windows in the north facing flank elevation of the dwelling and also the north facing roof slope of the garage.

The Director stated that a condition regarding the land ownership of the site or subdivision of the plot would be unreasonable and would not satisfy the standard tests applied to conditions.

After being put to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 770.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0080/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0080/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0179/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor G Jones expressed concerns regarding a residential annexe in this location. He stated that a separate access could in fact be created from the adjacent private roadway.  He further stated that if Officers considered this to be a factor in recommending approval then he would query this point of view.

In response to a query from Councillor M Alexander relating to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and any wording contained therein regarding garden developments, the Director stated that central government had issued advice in 2011 that local planning authorities should seek to avoid development in residential gardens.

The Director advised that the NPPF now stated that local authorities should consider whether to have a policy in relation to development in residential gardens.  Members were advised that whilst East Herts Council did have policies regarding residential annexes, there was currently no explicit policy that covered the issue of development in residential gardens.

Councillor M Alexander commented that the Authority would be setting a dangerous precedent should this application be approved.  He stated that he always considered an annexe to be adjoined to the main property and not a separate structure some way down a residential garden.

The Director advised that the NPPF gave Local Authorities more ability to exercise discretion and apply local policy.  The wording in the NPPF was, if anything, more favourable towards annexes in residential gardens.

Councillor J Taylor proposed and Councillor J Demonti seconded, a motion that application 3/12/0179/FP be refused on the grounds that the proposed development had the potential to be occupied as a separate residential unit due to its distance from the existing dwelling and the ability for separate access to be created, and as a result it had the potential to be harmful to neighbouring residential amenity and was therefore contrary to Policy ENV8 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED. 

The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0179/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.           The proposed development has the potential to be occupied as a separate residential unit due to its distance from the existing dwelling and the ability for separate access to be created.  As a result, it has the potential to be harmful to neighbouring residential amenity and therefore contrary to Policy ENV8 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Recommended for Refusal.

Mr John Donovan addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of applications 3/12/0070/FP and 3/12/0069/LB, planning permission and listed building consent be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor J Demonti commented that the proposed orangery was in keeping and in scale with the very long house located on this site.  She stated that the proposed development was a high quality extension that would enhance the listed building.  Also, she believed that the proposed development was not visible from the front so there would be no harm to the environment or the conservation area. 

Councillor T Page stated that the existing building represented a vibrant living history of building styles.  He commented that the proposed orangery would complement and enhance the balance of the existing listed building.  He also believed that the proposed orangery would enhance the natural lighting of the listed building in accordance with policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.  He also stated that the application would not cause a nuisance to the neighbours.

Councillor J Taylor commented that the application should be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to national planning policy guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Councillor T Page proposed and Councillor Mrs R Cheswright seconded, a motion that application 3/12/0070/FP be granted planning permission on the grounds that the proposed orangery would complement and enhance the balance of the existing listed building, and would enhance the natural lighting of the listed building in accordance with policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken this motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillor T Page proposed and Councillor Mrs R Cheswright seconded, a motion that application 3/12/0069/LB be granted listed building consent on the grounds that the proposed orangery would complement and enhance the balance of the existing listed building, and would enhance the natural lighting of the listed building in accordance with policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken this motion was also declared CARRIED.

The Committee rejected the recommendations of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

Councillors M Alexander and J Taylor requested that their dissent from these decisions be recorded.

RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/12/0070/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.            Three year time limit (1T12)

2.            Approved Plans (2E10) ..4096-1

3.            Materials of construction (2E11)

Summary of Reasons for Decision

The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (East of England Plan May 2008, Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the saved policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 773.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0051/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0051/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0178/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0178/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Enforcement.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of the site relating to E/12/0052/A, it was not expedient to issue and serve a planning enforcement notice

The Director advised that the planning agent acting for the developer had indicated that a planning application seeking permission for the unauthorised development was due to be submitted within the next two weeks.  The Director further advised that Members could defer consideration of this matter pending that submission.  Officers had also received a request that this matter be withdrawn from the agenda.

Officers would reintroduce the matter to the next Committee meeting if an application was not forthcoming or if other matters suggested that the issue should be re-addressed.

The Committee accepted that the matter be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee on the basis now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of E/12/0052/A, the matter be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee on the basis now detailed.

Enforcement.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of the site relating to E/12/0002/A, enforcement action be authorised on the basis now detailed.

The Director advised that a representative of the freeholder of the site had confirmed that the unauthorised signage had been displayed by the tenants of the upper floors and that, as freeholders, they were seeking the removal of the signs as soon as possible.

The Director requested that authorisation be given as detailed in the report now submitted, although no formal action would be taken if the unauthorised signs were removed within a reasonable period of time.

In response to a query from Councillor T Page, the Director advised that Officers felt that 2 to 3 weeks should be considered a reasonable period of time for removal of the unauthorised signs.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the Director’s recommendation that, in respect of the site relating to E/12/0002/A, enforcement action be authorised on the basis now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of E/12/0002/A, the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in conjunction with the Director of Internal Services, be authorised to take enforcement action on the basis now detailed.

(A)  Appeals against refusal of Planning Permission/ non?determination.

(B)  Planning Appeals Lodged.

(C)     Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing Dates.

(D)     Planning Statistics.

RESOLVED – that the following reports be noted:

(A)   Appeals against refusal of planning permission / non determination;

(B)      Planning Appeals lodged; and

(C)       Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing dates.

(D)       Planning Statistics.