Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors A Burlton and G Lawrence.  It was noted that Councillor D Andrews was in attendance as substitute for Councillor Burlton.

The Chairman welcomed the press and public to the meeting and those who were watching the live webcast.

The Chairman advised that the application at Longmead, Buntingford had been referred to the Secretary of State for a decision.  The Secretary of State had since advised Officers that there was no need for this referral.  Officers would now go ahead and issue the decision notice approving this application.

The Chairman advised that there would be a special meeting of the Committee on Thursday 25 August 2011 to determine applications in respect of the Old River Lane site (The Causeway), Bishop’s Stortford by Hendersons Global Investors.  This would be held in the Charis Centre, Bishop’s Stortford at 7.00 pm.

The Chairman referred to the training schedule that had been circulated to Members.  He advised that the first session would be held prior to the next meeting of the Committee on 20 July 2011.  This would be in the Council Chamber, Wallfields at 5.15 pm for approximately an hour and a quarter.  The subject of this training would be national and regional policies.

Councillor S Bull declared a personal and prejudicial interest in application 3/11/700/FO in that he was involved with the trust that had sold this site to the applicant.  He left the room whilst this matter was considered.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 25 May 2011.

RESOLVED - that the Minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 25 May 2011 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Recommended for Approval, subject to a S106 Planning Obligation of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of applications 3/11/0153/FP and 3/11/0154/LC, 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, planning permission and conservation area consent be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Director referred to the additional representation schedule where the floor areas for the retail elements of the application were clarified for Members.  Members were requested to note the provision of 61 parking spaces, which complied with policy TR7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Councillor G Jones stated that he was pleased to see an application to develop the site.  He was concerned however in relation to the height and scale of the buildings in the Bishop’s Stortford conservation area.  He commented that the application was contrary to policy BH6 and ENV1 by virtue of the size, scale and proportionality of the proposed development.  He also expressed concerns in relation to the significant traffic implications of the application.

Councillor Mrs R Cheswright stated a view that was contrary to the opinions of the conservation officer.  She commented that the proposed development was not an attractive structure for this location.  She also referred to the adverse traffic implications of the application on what was a very busy road.

The Director stressed that Officers did not have the evidence to support any concerns in relation to the traffic implications of the proposed development.

In response to a Member query, the Director confirmed that the proposed amenity space was considered to be acceptable for a town centre location.  He also advised that it would not be appropriate to expect a developer to fund solutions to existing problems such as airport parking or pressure on parking for users of the train station.

The Director acknowledged that the proposed development was larger than existing buildings on the site.  Officers were satisfied however that the development was acceptable in relation to the scale, size and form of other buildings in the area.  The use of high quality materials had also persuaded Officers that the application could be supported.

The Director further advised that the applicant was willing to put forward funds that could be used to fund future Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs).  He stated that a section 106 deferred payment arrangement could be drafted so that the funds would only be required if the traffic and parking implications were found to be significant.

Councillor J Demonti proposed and Councillor B Wrangles seconded a motion for an additional section 106 agreement for a deferred payment of £5,000 to fund Traffic Regulation Orders if necessary.

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

The Committee accepted the recommendations of the Director of Neighbourhood Services 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, applications  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Hawkins addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.  Mr Cooper spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0571/RP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/11/0571/RP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0571/RP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.    Three Year Time Limit (1T12)

2.            Levels (2E05) insert ‘and site cross sections’

3.            Materials of Construction (2E11)

4.            Approved plans (2E10)

        SAWB/AAA/0010, SAWB/AAA/0011, SAWB/AAA/0020, SAWB/AAA/0030, SAWB/AAA/0040, SAWB/AAA/0090, SAWB/AAA/0091, SAWB/AAA/0092, SAWB/AAA/0093, SAWB/AAA/0094, SAWB/AAA/0095, SAWB/AAA/0096, SAWB/AAA/0097, SAWB/AAA/0098, 5539/T/01-01, 1395.1 Rev A, SAWB/0840/AAA/0050, SAWB/0840/AAA/0051, SAWB/0912/AAA/0050, SAWB/0912/AAA/051, SAWB/1227/AAA/0050, SAWB/1227/AAA/0051, SAWB/GAR/AAA/0050, SAWB/1153/AAA/0050, SAWB/1645/AAA/0050, SAWB/1249/AAA/0050, SAWB/45-49/AAA/0050, SAWB/50-55/AAA/0050, SAWB/1885/AAA/0050

5.            Completion of Roads (3V13)

6.            Hard Surfacing (3V21)

7.            Wheel washing facilities (3V25)

8.            Tree Retention and Protection (4P05)

9.            Hedge Retention and Protection (4P06)

10.      Tree/Natural feature protection: fencing (4P07)

11.      Landscape design proposals (4P12)

        b), f), i), j), k), l) insert ‘and crime prevention’ ‘Policy ENV3’

12.      Landscape Works Implementation (4P13)

13.      Details of earthworks/mounding (4P16)

14.      Landscape maintenance (4P17)

15.      Retention of landscaping (4P21)

16.      Vehicular use of garage (5U10)

17.      Construction hours of working – plant and machinery (6N07)

18.      In accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the area of land at the eastern boundary of the site shown as open space on plan ref SAWB/AAA/0010 shall be made available for use by the residents of the development, and shall be permanently maintained as open space.

        Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of the future occupants of the site in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

19.      Prior to the commencement of the development, details of a lighting scheme for all communal areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing.

        Reason:  To ensure that all publicly accessible areas are appropriately lit to provide a safe and secure environment, in accordance with policy ENV3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

20.  Prior to the commencement of development above ground level full engineering details of the proposed junction onto Cambridge Road shall be submitted to and approved by the Local planning Authority in consultation with the Local highway authority.  Occupation of any new dwelling shall not occur until the approved junction has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

        Reason: To ensure that the access is constructed to an appropriate specification in the interests of highway safety and convenience in accordance with policy TR2 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Directives:

1.            Other Legislation (01OL)

2.            Highway Works (05FC)

3.            Outline permission relationship (07OP)

        Insert ’24 November 2008’ ‘3/07/1569/OP’

4.            Street Naming and Numbering (19SN)

Summary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

Recommended for Approval, subject to a S106 Planning Obligation of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0384/FO, subject to the applicant, within 6 months of the date of this resolution, entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

Councillor M Alexander expressed concerns in respect of a single point of access for this outline permission for phase 2 of this development.  He pointed out that the access junction through Lady Margaret Gardens was often congested on match days of Ware Youth Football Club.

Councillor Alexander stated his surprise that the fire brigade seem satisfied with the single point of access.  He stated that should the junction of Lady Margaret Gardens and Fanhams Hall Road become blocked, then the residents of this proposed development would be trapped.  He stressed that the County Council should have suggested alternative access arrangements when commenting on this application.

The Director reminded Members that this site had always been a housing allocation site with a single point of access.  Members were advised that County Highways had not sought to restrict the approval of planning permission for this outline application for up to 81 units.

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, within 6 months of the date of this resolution, entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, application 3/11/0384/OP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

Councillors M Alexander, D Andrews and J Taylor requested that their dissent with this decision be recorded.

RESOLVED – that subject to the applicant, within 6 months of the date of this resolution, entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

1.    The provision of  financial contributions of £625 per 1 bed residential unit, £750 per 2 bed unit, £1125 per 3 bed unit, and £1500 per 4 +bed units towards Sustainable Transport  Programme and Measures in the vicinity of the site.

2.    The provisions of a financial contribution of £8000 for TRO costs, and Bus stop improvements.

3.    The provision of Primary and Secondary Education Contributions, in accordance with the current HCC Contributions Table.

4.    The provision of Library contributions, in accordance with current HCC Contributions Table;

5.    The provision of Youth infrastructure contributions in accordance with the current HCC Contributions Table;

6.           The provision and adoption of suitable landscaped open space and areas of play and / or commuted sums for equivalent off-site provisions in accordance with the Council’s adopted SPD: Open Space, Sport and Recreation 2009, together with a sum for the future maintenance of such spaces. Such provision shall include, as a minimum, a LEAP and a LAP for the site, or provision shall be made via the enhancement/enlargement of the existing play space on POS2, including the provision of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

Recommended for Approval, subject to a S106 Planning Obligation of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Mr Lee addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.  Mr Croucher spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0674/FP, 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, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Director advised that details of the emergency access arrangements would have to be submitted to Officers prior to construction.  Officers considered it inappropriate to require a pedestrian access from Lime Close as there was sufficient parking within the proposed development in accordance with the Council’s supplementary planning document (SPD).  A condition regarding construction methods could be added to the planning permission if Members felt this was necessary.

Councillor M Alexander referred to the refuse and emergency vehicle plan that had been submitted.  He expressed concerns as to how refuse vehicles could get up to this site and whether these vehicles would use the emergency access via Lime Close.  He queried whether an emergency vehicle could negotiate the narrow turning circle for the emergency access from Lime Close.

Councillor Alexander stated that he was concerned in relation to the issue of the pedestrian link.  He stressed that a single visitor parking space was insufficient and he stated that he felt that most people would park in Lime Close and walk to this site.

The Director advised that it would be unfortunate if parts of any given community were segregated from neighbouring developments.  Members were advised that it might not be practical to create a secure access for emergency vehicles that could not also be used by pedestrians.  He commented that emergency services would not want a significant barrier that could not be swiftly removed.

The Director also advised that refuse vehicles should be able to access this site as these vehicles were able to negotiate the route up to neighbouring developments and also had no problems servicing the former hospital on this site.

Councillor Alexander stated that the access to the site was privately owned and often became impassable in conditions of ice and snow.  He also commented that he had observed refuse vehicles experiencing considerable difficulty in negotiating Lime Close.  He stressed that the fire service would not be happy with similar difficulties in an emergency.

Councillor M Alexander proposed and Councillor D Andrews seconded a motion for an additional condition that, prior to the commencement of the development, details of the emergency vehicle access onto Lime Close shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The details submitted shall ensure no pedestrian access between the site and Lime Close.

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

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services 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,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0700/FO, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/11/0700/FO be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0700/FO, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.    Three Year Time Limit (1T12)

2.    Boundary walls and fences (2E07)

3.            Approved plans (2E10)

        WH131/11/P/05.01, WH131/11/P/10.01 Rev A, WH131/11/P/25.01, WH131/11/P/25/02 Rev A, WH131/11/P/25/03, WH131/11/P/25.04, WH131/11/P/25.05 Rev A, WH131/11/P/25/06, WH131/11/P/35/01, 30110R

4.            Samples of Materials (2E13)

5.            Refuse disposal facilities (2E24)

6.            Completion of Roads (3V13)

7.            Hard Surfacing (3V21)

8.            Tree Retention and Protection (4P05)

9.            Hedge Retention and Protection (4P06)

10.      Tree/Natural feature protection: fencing (4P07)

11.      Tree protection: excavations (4P09)

12.      Landscape design proposals (4P12)

        a), b), d), e), f), i), j), k), l)

13.      Landscape Works Implementation (4P13)

14.      Retention of landscaping (4P21)

15.      Construction hours of working – plant and machinery (6N07)

Directives:

1.            Other Legislation (01OL)

2.            Highway Works (05FC)

3.            Outline permission relationship (07OP)

        Insert 20 May 2010’ ‘3/09/0101/OP’

4.            Street Naming and Numbering (19SN)

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 in particular policies TR2, TR3, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV11, ENV16 and PPS1, PPS3 and PPS9.  The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies and LPA Ref 3/09/0101/OP and 3/11/0039/RP is that permission should be granted.

a) Recommended that a variation of the S106 unilateral undertaking (reference 3/11/0236/SV) be granted.

b) Recommended for Approval.

Mr McCormick addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.  Mr Luder spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that the S106 unilateral undertaking (reference 3/11/0236/SV) dated 21 January 2008 pursuant to planning permission 3/07/1546/FO be varied to omit Clause 5.1 removing the requirement to provide a Car Club.  The Director also recommended that, subject to a variation of the legal agreement as now detailed, application 3/11/0236/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

Councillor M Newman commented on whether these applications had to be determined together or could the Committee consider them separately.  The Director confirmed that although the report covered interrelated issues on both applications, there was no reason why the applications could not be considered separately.

In response to further queries from Councillor Newman, the Director commented that a decision to authorise the variation of section 106 planning obligations under recommendation (A) meant that a decision had to be made on recommendation (B) as an applicant could not discharge their obligations under application 3/11/0236/SV without a decision being made on application 3/11/0217/FP. 

Members were reminded that applicants could lodge appeals against non determination of an application.  The Director queried what Members sought to achieve by disentangling these applications.

Councillor S Rutland-Barsby proposed and Councillor M Alexander seconded, a motion that application 3/11/0217/FP be approved and application 3/11/0236/SV be deferred and authority be delegated to Officers to further consider the conditions in consultation with Councillor Rutland-Barsby and the Chairman of the Committee.

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 that the S106 unilateral undertaking (reference 3/11/0236/SV) dated 21 January 2008 pursuant to planning permission 3/07/1546/FO be varied to omit Clause 5.1 removing the requirement to provide a Car Club.

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director that, subject to a variation of the legal agreement as now detailed, application 3/11/0217/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/11/0236/SV to vary the S106 unilateral undertaking (reference 3/11/0236/SV) dated 21 January 2008 pursuant to planning permission 3/07/1546/FO be varied to omit Clause 5.1 removing the requirement to provide a Car Club, planning permission be deferred; and

(B)   subject to a variation of the legal agreement as now detailed, in respect of application 3/11/0217/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.           Three year time limit (1T12)

2.           Approved plans (2E10 – WH112/11/P/05.101, WH112/11/P/15.01 rev A, WH112/11/P/10.000, WH112/11/P/10.100, WH112/11/P/10.101 rev A, WH112/11/P/35.101 rev A, WH112/11/P/35.102 rev A, WH112/11/P/35.103 rev 0)

3.           Prior to any building works being commenced, details of the brick for use on the retaining wall hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development, and in accordance with policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007,

4.           Prior to the commencement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

Recommended for Refusal.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0334/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons now detailed.

Councillor S Bull, as the local ward Member, expressed concerns that vehicles would not be able to safely negotiate the archway to access this site.  He referred to other access openings for this site.

The Director advised that Members must always weigh up the issues and the policy perspective on any application.  The Director stated that Officers had been concerned that this application compromised the setting of existing buildings and adversely affected the character of the paddock.

Members were advised that should the application be approved, Officers would impose the usual standard conditions for an application of this nature.

Councillor S Bull proposed and Councillor Mrs R Cheswright seconded, a motion that application 3/11/0334/FP be granted as the balance of issues weighed in favour of taking a sensible approach and approving the application for safety reasons.  The planning conditions would be delegated to Officers.

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 that application 3/11/0334/FP be refused for the reasons now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0334/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.    Time limit (IT121)

2.    Hard surfacing (3V213)

        Amend to “for the driveway and access hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details.”

3.    Programme of archaeological work (2E024)

4.    Approved plans (2E102) – “06-11.5a”.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0722/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/11/0722/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0722/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.            Temporary permission - building (1T08 – 3 years)

2.            Approved plans (2E10 - BA/4025.213/200, BA/4025.213/201, BA/4025.213/202)

3.            Materials as on plan (2E42)

4.            The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved flood risk assessment (Barker Associates, April 2011 BA/4025.213/001CC), and finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 34.3m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the development and future occupiers in accordance with policy ENV19 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Directives:

1.            Other legislation (01OL)

2.            Groundwater protection zone (28GP)

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 in particular policies SD2, GBC1, TR2, TR7, ENV1, ENV14, ENV19, ENV20 and LRC1, PPS1, PPG2 and PPS25. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies, and other material considerations, is that permission should be granted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0544/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

Councillor J Demonti commented that the lights along the footpath could lead people to believe this was a safe route when this was not necessarily the case.  She also queried the lighting up times.

Councillor G Jones emphasised that the site was designated as green belt and this application was a material change of use that was inappropriate unless the openness of the greenbelt was maintained.  He commented that, due to the loss of recreational facilities, the application was contrary to policy LRC1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Councillor Jones stated that as East Herts Council was the applicant, the Authority should be seen to conform to local plan policies.  He commented that he did not feel this was an acceptable situation for departing from green belt policy.

The Director commented on whether Members felt that condition 6 should be strengthened so that the applicant had more than 3 months to cease the use of the temporary car park upon the completion of the approved works to the car parks.  Members were advised that such development was not normally considered to be unacceptable in relation to green belt policy.

Councillor G Jones proposed and Councillor D Andrews seconded, a motion that application 3/11/0544/FP be deferred to enable further details to be submitted in relation to proposed lighting (including hours of operation), the route of the footpath and timescale for the provision of the temporary parking.

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 that application 3/11/0544/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0544/FP, planning permission be deferred to enable further details to be submitted in relation to proposed lighting (including hours of operation), route of the footpath and timescale for the provision of the temporary parking.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Wadia addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0658/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

In response to a query from Councillor S Rutland-Barsby, the Director stated that Officers had carefully considered the weight to be applied to the relative impact of an office use when compared to the use now proposed by this application.  He stressed that Members must make a similar judgement when determining this application.

Councillor M Newman commented that he did not accept the views of the Officer as detailed in paragraph 7.8 of the report now submitted.  He referred in particular to traffic generation and parking provision in that he was not satisfied that the proposal would not result in a significant increase in traffic generation over the existing office use and that sufficient parking provision was available within the site.

Councillor M Alexander sought clarification on what County Highways meant when they had questioned the sustainability of the proposals.  The Director advised that Officers understood this to mean that the proposed location would be more sustainable if this was a town centre location with better access to public transport.

The Director advised that Officers felt that policy EDE3 was less relevant than policy EDE2 on this application.  He stressed that Officers had considered the application to be acceptable in policy terms.

In response to concerns from Councillor G Jones with regard to this application setting a precedent, the Director emphasised that Members should restrict their deliberations to primary planning issues, such as traffic, highways and parking implications.

The Director advised caution around Members’ concerns in relation to traffic generation with the proposed use.  He stressed that Members should be careful with any concerns based around assumptions that could not be substantiated.  He also stated that concerns with traffic generation could prove difficult to sustain.

The Director emphasised that the Council’s parking standards were framed as maximum standards and this scheme complied with those of one space per 30 square metres.

Councillor J Taylor proposed and Councillor Mrs R Cheswright seconded, a motion that application 3/11/0658/FP be refused on the grounds that the proposed use would result in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity by virtue of the additional traffic generated in the adjacent residential area of Pishiobury Drive and would thereby be contrary to policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 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 that application 3/11/0658/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

Councillor W Ashley requested that his dissent with this decision be recorded.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0658/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.    The proposed use would result in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity by virtue of the additional traffic generated in the adjacent residential area of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Shaw addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to no new substantive issues being raised during the consultation period, in respect of application 3/11/0763/PT, prior approval was required and authority be delegated to the Director of Neighbourhood Service to grant planning permission subject to the conditions now detailed.

Councillor N Symonds, as the local ward Member, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.  Councillor M Newman stated that he could not see any justifiable reason why existing masts could not be shared.

The Director advised that Officers had been advised that there were clear technical constraints as to why these masts could not be shared.  Members were reminded that this proposed mast was classed as permitted development and was before the Committee so that Members could consider the sighting and appearance of the mast.  Members should not be considering the issue of mast sharing or whether there was a need for an additional mast.

Councillor G Jones referred to the other masts in the vicinity.  He stated his concerns over the proximity of the proposed development to 64 Mathams Drive.  He considered that the impact of a mast this close to a residential property was unacceptable.

The Director stressed that Officers felt that the proposed mast would not result in unacceptable clutter.  Officers also considered that the location and appearance of the mast was acceptable.  The Director stressed that this was a subjective view and provided that Members restricted their debate to location appearance, they could safely make a case in support of or in objection to the Officers’ recommendation. 

The Director reported that sharing masts was difficult in that mobile phone operators had sought to keep masts to as modest a height and scale as possible.  Whilst this reduced the impact of any given mast it also meant that mast sharing was difficult as each mast was too small for sharing to take place. 

The Director stressed that for a mast to be used for sharing, the structure would have to be that bit taller with more ancillary equipment.  Members were advised that widespread mast sharing would result in structures that were more visually dominant.

Councillor G Jones proposed and Councillor J Demonti seconded, a motion that application 3/11/0763/PT be refused on the grounds that the mast was unacceptable due to the close proximity and intrusiveness of the proposed development to number 64 Mathams Drive.

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

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that, subject to no new substantive issues being raised during the consultation period, in respect of application 3/11/0763/PT, prior approval was required and authority be delegated to the Director of Neighbourhood Service to grant planning permission subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0544/FP, subject to no new substantive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0532/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/11/0532/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0532/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.            Three year time limit (1T121)

2.            Approved plans (2E102): 808.01, 808.02, 808.03, MC1 and MC2 received on the 29^th March 2011 and 808.04 Revision 1 and 808.05 Revision 1 (received on the 6^th June 2011)

3.            Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the external materials of construction for the building hereby permitted shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any building works being commenced. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with those approved materials.

Reason:  In the interests of the appearance of the development, and in accordance with policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

4.            The proposed first floor window to the eastern elevation shall be fitted with obscure-glazing and be non-opening, unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed. Thereafter, the window shall be retained as such.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of occupiers of the adjoining property, in accordance with policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Directive:

1.    Other legislation (01OL1)

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 in particular policies ENV1, ENV5, ENV6 and GBC1 and national Planning Policy Guidance 2 – Green Belts. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that permission should be granted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement requiring that the permission granted within LPA reference 3/08/1039/FP shall not be implemented, in respect of application 3/11/0347/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that, subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement requiring that the permission granted within LPA reference 3/08/1039/FP shall not be implemented, application 3/11/0347/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that, subject the applicant entering into a legal agreement requiring that the permission granted within LPA reference 3/08/1039/FP shall not be implemented, in respect of application 3/11/0347/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.    Three year time limit (1T121)

2.    Matching materials (2E123)

3.    Approved plans (2E102) – 004PEL/D 1.00; 2.02; 1.01; 2.03; 2.01;

Directive:

1.    Other Legislation (01OL)

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 in particular policies GBC3, ENV1, ENV5 and BH1.  The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that permission should be granted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0512/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/11/0512/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0512/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.            Time limit (1T121)

2.            Approved plans (2E102)

        The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans SE1; SE2; SE3; 09.003.11 and 09.003.12

        Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, drawings and specifications.

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 in particular policies GBC1, ENV1, ENV5 and ENV6.  The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that permission should be granted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0526/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/11/0526/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0526/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.            Three year time limit (1T12)

2.            Approved plans (2E10) (TM/TS/040311/01A)

3.            Matching materials for conservatory (2E14)

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 in particular policies GBC3, ENV1, ENV5, ENV6 and BH2.  The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that permission should be granted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0677/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/11/0677/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0677/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.            Three year time limit (1T12)

2.            Approved Plans (2E10) – NH/442/01; NH/442/02; NH/442/03

3.            Matching Materials (2E13)

Directive:

1.            Other legislation

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 East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular ENV1, ENV5 and ENV6. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that permission should be granted.

Enforcement.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of the site relating to E/10/0303/B, enforcement action be authorised on the basis now detailed.

The Committee accepted the Director’s recommendation for enforcement action to be authorised in respect of the site relating to E/10/0303/B on the basis now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of E/10/0303/B, the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in conjunction with the Director of Internal Services, be authorised to take enforcement action underSection 38 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and any such further steps as may be required to secure the removal of the unauthorised boundary treatment and the restoration of the listed building to its state and form at the date of its listing.

Period for compliance: 6 months.

Reasons why it is expedient to prosecute and/or issue an enforcement notice and/or issue a repairs notice:

1.           The unauthorised gates and railings are out of keeping with, and detrimental to, the historic and architectural character of the listed building and therefore fail to sustain and enhance the significance of this designated heritage asset, contrary to policies HE7 and HE9 of PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment.

The Head of Planning and Building Control submitted a report to update Members in relation to the receipt of a pre-action notification letter for a judicial review of the Committee’s decision to approve an application for an Asda food store in Ware.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that, subject to all outstanding legal agreement matters being resolved, the Council proceeds to release the formal planning application decision relating to the proposals now detailed.

Members were advised that Officers and the Applicant had both received legal advice in relation to the impending judicial review.  Officers would be releasing the decision as soon as all outstanding section 106 legal agreement issues had been resolved.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the Officer’s recommendation that, subject to all outstanding legal agreement matters being resolved, the Council proceeds to release the formal planning application decision relating to the proposals now detailed.

RESOLVED - that once all outstanding legal agreement matters have been resolved, the Council proceeds to release the formal planning application decision relating to the proposals 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;

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

(D)       Planning Statistics.