Agenda and minutes

The Chairman announced that Democratic Services Officer, Peter Mannings and his wife Tracy, had become the proud parents of a son.  Members sent their congratulations to the new parents.

The Chairman announced that application 3/13/1115/FP (Garage site and grassed area, Francis Road, Ware) and enforcement case E/13/0/187A (Unauthorised advertisements at 212 Dunmow Road, Bishop’s Stortford, Herts) had been withdrawn.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 14 August 2013.

In respect of Minute 190 – Applications 3/12/1955/FP and 3/12/1956/LB, Councillor D Andrews stated that although Councillor P Ballam was the local Member she was not the local “ward” Member.  The Committee agreed that the word “ward” should be deleted.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 August 2013 as now amended, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

a) 3/13/1000/FP – Recommended for Approval.

b) 3/13/1183/OP – Recommended for Approval.

Mr Baker addressed the Committee against the application.  Mr Phillips spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to the applicants entering into legal obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of applications 3/13/1000/FP and 3/13/1183/OP, planning permission and outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.  He drew Members’ attention to the additional representations which had been submitted after the agenda had been dispatched. 

The Director of Neighbourhood Services stated that the main issue was the absence of an up to date District Plan and that the Council did not have the ability to demonstrate the supply of land over a five year period but that a robust approach was being taken by the government nationally to allow development to come forward.  He commented that, in relation to planning policy, if significant harm, “the high test”, could not be demonstrated, then applications for planning permission should be approved.  He drew Members’ attention to the changes that the applicant had put forward following concerns expressed and negotiation with Officers.

Councillor J Jones, as a ward member, stated that the application was premature in that a District Plan was not yet available.  He acknowledged that housing would come to Buntingford but that this was a “hostile application” in a location within the town, which nobody wanted.  Councillor Jones said that there had been no reasonable consultation with the Town Council and residents by the developer and that the applicant was using the vulnerability of Buntingford in the absence of a District Plan.   He referred to the fact that the location was not within the natural valley to the east of the town and that the application would dominate the town from an elevated position. 

Councillor J Jones expressed concern regarding the proposed mini roundabout and the logistics of its use by the Funeral Service and stated that the cemetery proposed was not in a suitable location.  He referred to the draft District Plan which stated that this was the least favourable location for such an application.  Councillor Jones stated that for localism to succeed, the application needed to be refused on grounds of prematurity.

Councillor S Bull stated that it had been fundamental to refuse the previous application on the grounds of prematurity and that it still remained a valid reason for this application.  He explained that the whole site was in a rural area and that the site was less suitable than other sites in the town.  Councillor Bull referred to previous planning applications which had been approved and that housing provision was already in excess of what was anticipated in the draft District Plan.  He suggested that it should be refused for a number of planning reasons including Policies GBC2 and GBC3, transport policy and policy SD1.  

Councillor Bull referred to the application’s close proximity to the school, accessibility problems and the unsuitability of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 222.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/13/0923/RP, 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 3/13/0923/RP, 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 3/13/1023/FO, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services stated that a Deed of Variation needed to be incorporated within the Section 106 Agreement. 

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

RESOLVED – that subject to the applicant or successor entering into a Deed of Variation to the existing Section 106 Agreement in relation to application reference 3/11/0554/OP, planning permission be granted in respect of application 3/13/1023/FO, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Outline permission time limit (1T03)

2.    The residential development hereby permitted shall not exceed a total gross internal floorspace of 37,068 sq.m.

Reason: To ensure that the amount of development is compatible with the location of the site within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

3.    Approved plans (2E10) (BH1001, BH1002, BH1003, BH1004, BH1005, and  BH1100)

4.    Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010.

5.    Prior to the occupation of the development the pedestrian and cyclist accesses shown on Plan No. BH1004 shall be provided and thereafter retained for such use.

Reason: To help achieve a sustainable development and promote the use of non car modes of transport in accordance with the aims of the NPPF.

6.           Hours of working - plant and machinery (6N05)

7.    Prior to the commencement of development the works specified within the Phase 1 Geo-environmental Assessment Report, March 2011, shall be carried out unless amendments to these works are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Following the completion of the works a validation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any building works commencing on site.

Reason: To ensure the site no longer poses a potential risk to groundwater in accordance with policy ENV20 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the Technical Guidance to the NPPF.

8.           No development or groundworks shall take place until the applicant has implementation the programme of archaeological work in accordance with the written scheme of investigation which was submitted by Northamptonshire Archaeology dated 3^rd January 2013. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme, and this condition will only be discharged when the required archaeological reports are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To secure the protection of and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 224.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/2137/SV, Members confirm that, if they had been able to determine the application, they would have agreed to a variation of the Section 106 agreement as detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor D Andrews expressed concern regarding the wording in relation to the transfer of the freehold and suggested that the words “provided such transfer occurs within 5 years of completion of the agreement” be deleted.

Councillor G Jones was against modification of the Section 106 agreement and that the original agreement of £125,000 should be paid to the County Council.  Councillor A Burlton agreed that the Council should not be subsidising commercial organisations.  This was also supported by Councillor N Symonds.

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as amended.

RESOLVED – that if able to determine application 3/11/2137/SV, a variation of the Section 106 agreement as detailed in the report and now amended, be approved:

An amended highways contribution of £80,000 towards works contained within the Bishop’s Stortford Transportation Plan (reduced from £125,000 in original agreement) to be paid to the County Council as follows:

·            £10,000 per each floor of the building (four floors) payable prior to occupation of each floor (indexed from date of agreement); and

·            £40,000 paid upon transfer of the freehold.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to the applicant or successor in title entering into a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of application 3/13/0074/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 3/13/0074/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/13/0106/B, enforcement action be authorised on the basis now detailed.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the Director’s recommendation for enforcement action to be authorised in respect of the site relating to E/13/0106/B on the basis now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of E/13/0106/B, the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in conjunction with the Director of Finance and Support Services, be authorised to take enforcement action on the basis now detailed.

Enforcement.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of the site relating to E/12/0308/B, enforcement action be authorised on the basis now detailed.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the Director’s recommendation for enforcement action to be authorised in respect of the site relating to E/12/0308/B on the basis now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of E/12/0308/B, the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in conjunction with the Director of Finance and Support 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 – ‘To Follow’.

RESOLVED – that the following reports be noted:

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

(B)       Planning Appeals lodged;

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

(D)  Planning Statistics.