Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors K A Barnes and G E Lawrence.  It was noted that Councillor P A Ruffles was in attendance as substitute for Councillor G E Lawrence.

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

The Chairman informed Members that Councillor John Hedley had passed away whilst on holiday with friends in Tunisia.  He stated that Councillor Hedley had joined the Authority in 2003 and had served on this Committee for 3 consecutive civic years.  The Chairman referred to Councillor Hedley’s no nonsense approach and stated that he would be a character that would be surely missed.He advised that he would be sending the condolences of the Committee to Councillor Hedley’s family and friends at this very sad time. 

The Chairman stated that this was the final meeting of the civic year and paid tribute to the wealth of knowledge and experience of Councillors R N Copping and R Gilbert as they were not standing for re-election.  Councillor Copping had served as a District Councillor for 28 years and Councillor Gilbert for 24 years.  Both Members had contributed to Development Control for all of those years. The Chairman wished Councillors Copping and Gilbert all the best for the future.

The Chairman also expressed his thanks to the Committee for their support throughout the Civic Year.  The Chairman also thanked the Committee Officer and the Planning Officers for their support.

The Chairman advised that he had agreed to accept an urgent item of business onto the agenda in respect of 3/11/0356/PT – Junction of Great Hadham Road and Oriole Way, Bishop’s Stortford for Vodafone UK Ltd in the interests of the efficient operation of the service and to avoid delay.  This item would be determined as item 5a.

Members supported Councillor Mrs M H Goldspink when she thanked Councillor W Ashley for his Chairmanship of the Development Control Committee.

Councillor S A Bull declared a personal and prejudicial interest in application 3/11/0039/RP in that he was a member of the Charity Trust that owned the land on which the houses would be built.  Councillor Bull left the room whilst this matter was considered.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 9 March 2011.

RESOLVED - that the Minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 9 March 2011 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Mrs Walton addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0356/PT, prior approval be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Director advised that Officers had received 158 representations on this application and Officers had summarised the comments in the additional representations schedule.  Members were advised that Hertfordshire Highways had not objected to the application.

Councillor G McAndrew, as the local ward Member, referred to paragraph 1.3 of the report now submitted in that the proposed installation was actually 30 metres from the public space containing a children’s play area.  He commented that a majority of the users of the playground were children aged 2 – 5 years old.

Councillor McAndrew referred Members to paragraph 1.6 in that this application was for a new column, so that Vodafone and O2 would occupy two separate structures in the area.  He stressed that the reasons for refusal under application 3/10/0326/PT were all still relevant and all the reasons for rejected permissions in paragraphs 2.2 - 2.5 were also still relevant for this application.

Councillor G McAndrew expressed concerns that this application was before Members for a decision whilst the consultation process was still ongoing.  He stated his strong concern that Development Control and other committee meetings were not being held during Purdah.

Councillor McAndrew was particularly concerned that a decision could be reached on this application without the usual timescales for consultation and scrutiny.  He referred to paragraph 3.2 of the report and stressed that the Committee must give very clear and concise direction to the Chairman and the Director prior to the issue of the decision.

Councillor McAndrew stated that it was often unclear what consultation process had been followed in selecting sites for telecommunication masts.  He stressed that it was unclear which sites had been ruled in or ruled out by the applicant.

Councillor McAndrew commented on whether the cumulative impact of two masts complied with the national guidelines on the potential health risks in respect of emissions.  He stated that the application should be refused on the grounds of the perceived health risk and for all the reasons detailed in paragraphs 2.2 to 2.5 in relation to previously refused applications.

The Director confirmed that the International Commission on Non-Ironising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines did take into account the cumulative impact of any other masts in close proximity to a proposed site.

Councillor R Gilbert expressed his frustration that the phone companies often took no notice of the public’s views when selecting locations for telecommunication masts.  He stated his concern that this new mast was to be located in close proximity to an existing mast.  He commented that mobile phone operators were not fully examining the opportunities for sharing masts.

Councillor Gilbert stressed that previous applications had been refused on health grounds even though this was not a valid planning reason.  He failed to see how Members could refuse the application.  In response to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 664.

Recommended for Refusal.

Mr Fairbrass addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0160/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons now detailed.

The Director advised that Officers had summarised the additional comments in relation to the character of and relationship between the buildings in the additional representations schedule.

Councillor R Gilbert stated that he was not supportive of the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.  He referred to the less than attractive location of the site and the current collection of poor quality buildings.  He commented that the application would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

Councillor Gilbert stressed that the land around the site rose in all directions and the site was in a hollow and the Landscape Officer had considered the scheme to be acceptable in landscape terms.  He commented that the application would provide more employment than was currently provided in this location.

Councillor Mrs M H Goldspink stated she was glad the site was to be tidied up with a development that was mixed use.  She expressed concerns in relation to the layout of the site and the amenity space in terms of an extremely small garden for house number 6. 

Councillors Gilbert and Goldspink also expressed concerns in respect of the very narrow access road and suggested that this  should be widened.  Councillor Goldspink commented on whether Officers could comment on the possibility of a pavement being introduced along Jeans Lane.

The Director advised that widening the access or introducing a pavement might be possible, although there might be difficulties due to land ownership constraints.

Members were reminded that a deferral was a possibility so that the issue of the access could be explored further.  The Director stressed that the Highway Authority was supportive of the proposals as they stood.

In response to a query from Councillor A L Burlton, the Director advised that the Highway Authority’s approach to transport infrastructure improvements included financial contributions to support infrastructure improvements in this area.

Members were reminded that they might wish to seek security in respect of the provision of office space if the Committee was minded to approve the application.  The Director reminded Members that local plan policy sought to retain employment land across the District.  Members were advised that Bishop’s Stortford was a more constrained location in respect of employment land.

Councillor Gilbert stressed that the provision of the office element of the application, in conjunction with 1 or 2 houses, was important.  He stated that the planning conditions could be delegated to the Officers in consultation with the Chairman. 

The Director commented that a concurrent 50% split between office provision and housing would be a reasonable approach.  Members were also advised that Officers would be happy to work up appropriate conditions.  The Director stressed that the possibility of affordable housing provision would be lost if the application was approved by Members.

Councillor R Gilbert proposed and Councillor J Demonti seconded, a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 665.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0039/RP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

Councillor R N Copping commented on how vehicular and pedestrian access to the allotment gardens to the west would be maintained once the proposed development had been completed.

The Director confirmed that there was a requirement that this access to be maintained in the long term.  The developer had also undertaken to try to ensure access to the adjoining allotments was not comprised during implementation should the application be approved.

The Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/11/0039/RP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0039/RP, 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, WH131/11/P/25.01, WH131/11/P/25/02, WH131/11/P/25/03, WH131/11/P/25.04, WH131/11/P/25.05,  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 is that permission should be granted.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Holland addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/1147/FP, subject to the applicant 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.

Councillor P A Ruffles expressed sympathy with the views of Hertford Town Council.  He stressed that there was one single route into this area of Hertford via Hertford East Station.  He expressed concerns in relation to the commercial and industrial aspects of the application.

Councillor R N Copping expressed strong concerns in respect of an 8% provision of affordable housing against a policy of 40%. 

Councillor S Rutland-Barsby concurred with the comments of the public speaker in relation to car clubs.  She stated that the Committee was trapped in making a decision in the sense that a previous application on this site had been approved on appeal.

Councillor Rutland-Barsby expressed concerns in relation to the parking and highways situation on this site.  She emphasised that although she was against this application, there were no sound reasons in planning law for refusing it.

The Director reminded Members that developers were increasingly challenging the Authority on percentages of affordable housing in relation to the viability of developments.  He stressed that in the current financial climate, this was to be expected.  Members were advised that planning inspectors were now accepting these viability assessments.

The Director cautioned Members that the although the Committee had previously refused this application, the Authority had lost the subsequent appeal.  The Committee would have to articulate very clearly why Members remained unsupportive of this application given the appeal decision.

The Director stated that the Authority could be judged to be acting unreasonably should this application be refused for reasons that could not be substantiated.

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/10/1147/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed and the section 106 legal agreement.

Councillor S Rutland-Barsby requested that her abstention from voting be recorded.

RESOLVED – that subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 legal agreement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to cover the following matters:

1.           The provision of a minimum 8% affordable housing to be provided in accordance with the following mix:- Socially rented as 2 x 1 bed 2 person flat, 4 x 2 bed 4 person flat, 2 x 3 bed 4 person flat and 1 x 3 bed 5 person flat, and shared ownership as 2 x 1 bed 2 person flat and 3 x 2bed 3 person flat. This level of affordable housing is, however, subject to a review mechanism requiring the appraisal to be carried out again prior to the implementation of the permission (no earlier than 6 months and no later than 4 months prior to the implementation date (to be defined).

2.           £126,722 for Primary Education

3.           £51,092 for Secondary Education

4.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 667.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0145/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/11/0145/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0145/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.           3 year time limit (1T12)

2.           Approved plans (2E10):- 1

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 PoliciesGBC2, GBC3 and GBC14.  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 3/10/2214/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

Councillor P A Ruffles, as the local ward Member, stated that he would almost certainly abstain from voting as he could not find any planning reasons for going against the Officer’s recommendation for approval.  He stated that there was no conservation area improvement resulting from this application.

Councillor Ruffles commented that access via the existing footbridge had been in place without complaint for many years.  He stated that this was not the only disabled access to the adjacent land. 

Councillor Ruffles pointed out that there were alternative routes for vehicles or for grass cutting.

Councillor Ruffles stressed the importance of the condition in respect of flood compensation measures, due to the increased footprint of the proposed development.  Councillor R N Copping agreed with the views of Councillor Ruffles.  He also supported the views of the Conservation Officer.

In response to concerns from Councillor Copping in relation to night time security, the Director stressed that although this was not a material planning issue, Officers had stated in the report that details of any gates or other security measures be provided and agreed via a planning condition.

Councillor R Gilbert expressed concerns that access to the bridge was often compromised due to parked cars.  He commented on whether parking would have to be restricted in part of St Andrews Street Car Park to ensure disabled access to the bridge.

The Director stressed that there was a keep clear zone marked out on the car park and drew attention to this on the plans displayed in the meeting.  Members were advised that this application would not result in the loss of any parking spaces.

The Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/10/2214/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/2214/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.    Three year time limit (1T12)

2.           Approved Plans (2E10) 3515 – 01, HFB/001/A; TH1

3.           Programme of archaeological works (2E02)

4.           Tree retention and protection (4P05)

5.           Prior to the first use of the bridge hereby permitted, details of any gates or similar measures to secure the bridge and prevent general vehicle access into Castle Grounds shall be submitted and as approved by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

        Reason: In order to ensure that any measures required to secure the Castle Grounds at night are appropriately designed in the interests of the appearance and character of this part of the Conservation Area and in accordance with Policies ENV3 and BH6 of the adopted East Herts Local Plan 2007.

6.           Prior to the commencement of works, detailed drawings of the new ramp to the car park indicating levels, gradient and surface materials shall be provided at scale not less than 1:20. The development shall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 669.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Hargreaves addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0086/SV, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

Councillor J O Ranger, as the local ward Member, gave a brief historical introduction to the application.  He stressed that there was a significant strength of local feeling that the age restriction must be retained.  He stated that he had been asked by a number of local residents to request that the Committee refuse this application.

Councillor Ranger summarised the planning history of the site.  He stressed that Darling Homes were aware of the age restriction and should have constructed homes that were compatible with that restriction.  He also pointed out that the people who brought such houses were often not on the Authority’s housing register.

Councillor Ranger referred to a local concern in respect of a loss of peace and quiet for residents, should this application be approved.  He stated that this application would not set a precedent as all the properties in the area had a similar age restriction.

Councillor Ranger commented that local residents felt that this application contravened a number of local plan policies.  He requested that Members refuse the application in light of the local need for housing for the elderly and also in acknowledgement of the local feeling that this age restriction must be retained.

The Director advised that there was no local plan policy on which Officers could have recommended this application for refusal.  There was no policy that could be applied to retain the elderly person’s age restriction.  Members were reminded to consider relevant planning issues only.

The Committee was advised that Members must clearly articulate the requirements and planning need for an elderly person’s enclave in this location.  The Director advised that justifying the retention of this restriction would be a very difficult case to sustain.

Councillor J J Taylor queried why the Authority did not have a local plan policy to cover this situation.  She stressed the importance of retaining quiet peaceful areas for the elderly to reside.

The Director commented that the Authority now had far less involvement in housing matters than would have been the case 20 or more years ago when it was a direct provider.

He stressed that the approach of the District Council was now very much a case of working with Hertfordshire County Council and the social landlords in seeking to influence housing policy to meet the needs of residents.

The Director stated this approach was now common place in ensuring provision for various groups within the community.  He commented that an age restriction of 50 plus was a particularly blunt instrument as many people of that age were financially capable of meeting their own accommodation requirements.

The Director advised that the Committee’s decision must be made on planning grounds.  The Director reiterated that there was no planning policy backing for seeking to retain an enclave of this nature.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 670.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/2213/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/10/2213/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/2213/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.            Three year time limit (1T12)

2.            Approved plans (2E102) (FM1, FM2, FM3)

3.            Hedge Retention and Protection (4P06)

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 SD3, GBC3, ENV1, PPS5 ‘Planning for the Historic Environment’, and PPS22 ‘Renewable Energy’.  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 3/10/2054/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

Councillor S A Bull briefly summarised the planning history of the site.

The Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/10/2054/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/2054/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.           Three year time limit (1T12)

2.           Sample of materials (2E12)

3.           Lighting details (2E27)

4.           Hard surfacing (3V21)

5.           Landscape design proposals (4P12) (Criteria (b) (c) (d) (f) (i) (j) (k) (l))

6.           Landscape works implementation (4P13)

7.           Approved plans (2E102) (09.14077.2, 09.14077.3, 09.14077.4, 09.14077.6, BSHQ3A, BSHQ4, Location Plan, Block Plan, Existing Site Plan)

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, LRC1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV23 and TR7.  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 3/11/0239/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/11/0239/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0239/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.            Three Year Time Limit (1T12)

2.            Approved plans (2E10 – 11_139/PL01, 11_139/PL02, 11_139/PL03, 11_139/PL04, 11_139/PL05, 11_139/PL06, 11_139/PL07, 11_139/PL08)

3.            Materials of construction (2E11)

4.            Tree Survey (4P01)

5.            Tree retention and protection (4P05)

6.            Tree protection: restrictions on burning (4P08)

7.            Tree Protection: Earthworks (4P10)

8.            Tree surgery (4P11)

9.            Landscape design proposals (4P12 e,i,j,k)

10.      Landscape works implementation (4P13)

11.      Tree Planting (4P15)

12.      Trees: protection from foundations (4P20 – amend for foundations of front porch only)

13.      Retention of landscaping (4P21)

14.      Following implementation of this permission and notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995, the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of the dwelling house as described in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Order shall not be undertaken without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

        Reason:  To ensure the Local Planning Authority retains control over any future development as specified in the condition in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy ENV9 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

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 GBC1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV5, ENV6, ENV9, ENV11 and PPS1 and PPG2. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies, and permission 3/09/0841/FP, is that permission should be granted.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0027/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/11/0027/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0027/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.           Three year time limit (1T12)

2.           Sample of materials (2E12) – amend to include garage door

3.           Approved plans (2E102) DG1, DG1A, DG2, DG3, DG4, DG5, DG6

4.           Vehicular use of garage (5U103)

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, ENV2, ENV5, ENV6 and TR7.  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/08/0300/A, enforcement action be authorised on the basis now detailed.

The Committee supported the Director’s recommendation for enforcement action to be authorised in respect of the site relating to E/08/0300/A on the basis now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of E/08/0300/A, the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in conjunction with the Director of Internal Services, be authorised to take enforcement action under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and/or Section 38 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and any such further steps as may be required to secure:

1.          the removal of the unauthorised rear dormer and either:

·              the reinstatement of the roof (in accordance with a detailed schedule of works to be set out in the enforcement notice in consultation with the Conservation officer); or

·              the construction of the rear dormer in accordance with the planning permission and listed building consent granted under references 3/06/2356/FP and 3/06/2357/LB.

Period for compliance:  6 months

Reason why it is expedient to issue an enforcement notice:

1.           The unauthorised rear dormer window, by reason of its scale, form, design and detailing, is detrimental to the historic and architectural character and appearance of this Grade II listed building contrary to policies HE7 and HE9 of Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.

(A)      Planning Statistics.

RESOLVED – that the following report be noted:

(A)   Planning Statistics.