Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor G Jones.

The Chairman reminded Members of the importance of attending the next scheduled training session on 27 February 2013 at 5.15 pm in Room 27, Wallfields, Hertford.

Councillor D Andrews declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in application 3/12/1040/OP, in that he was employed by the Sainsbury’s group of companies and Sainsbury’s used to own the site that was the subject of this application.  He left the room whilst this matter was considered.

Councillor P Moore declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in application 3/12/1805/FP, in that she sat on the steering committee with the applicant.  She left the room whilst this matter was considered.

Councillor E Bedford declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in application 3/12/1805/FP, in that his son was the next door neighbour of the applicant.  He left the room whilst this matter was considered.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 5 December 2012 (Previously circulated as part of the Council Minute book for 12 December 2012).

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 December 2012 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Recommended for Approval.

Joanne Dieguez addressed the Committee against the application.  David Smith spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1040/OP, outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director referred Members to the comments detailed in the additional representations schedule.  Councillor S Bull, as the local ward Member, referred to the inevitability of development on this site and he praised the considerable amount of work carried out by the applicant on this application.  Councillor Bull referred to the 9% decrease in the volume of the proposed storage and distribution centre.  He stated however that he remained concerned about the HGV movements to and from the site.

Councillor Bull praised the applicant for reducing the visual impact of the application by substituting the proposed multi storey car park with a surface level car park.  He expressed concern however, that the access was still from London Road as opposed to access only from the existing roundabout.  He stated that he would like the application to be implemented with the minimum possible disruption for residents.

Councillor M Newman referred to the heavy traffic flows on the A10 between Royston and Buntingford.  He commented that the traffic to and from this site should be controlled by conditions so that the peak flows were outside of the rush hour periods.

Councillor Mrs R Cheswright stated that, although situated on the edge of Buntingford, this site was close to a large number of residential dwellings.  She expressed concerns over the height of the proposed development and referred to the likelihood of traffic problems resulting from 600 people accessing and leaving the site.

Councillor E Bedford reminded Members that this site had always been a depot and the size of the proposed development was a commercial decision based on the viability of the application.  He stated that the impact of the traffic movements was exaggerated as there would be an element of car sharing and some staff might well cycle to the site or arrive on foot.  He concluded that the impact of the application in terms of investment for the local economy was a very important factor to consider.

The Director acknowledged that the buildings proposed by the applicant would be visible but Members were reminded that there were already buildings on the site with a height of 22.5 metres.  Officers were satisfied however, that there was sufficient space around the site to mitigate the impacts of the development.

Members were advised that that overall floor space would be less than the existing buildings but there would be an increase in volume and height.  The Director stressed that Hertfordshire Highways had not objected to the application and had pointed out that the traffic movements would be less than the movements that could occur if the site was utilised with the existing use.

The Director concluded that the impact on London Road had been assessed as acceptable via the TRICS  ...  view the full minutes text for item 529.

Recommended for Approval.

Tim Bowden addressed the Committee against the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1804/RP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor M Alexander, as the local ward Member, expressed concerns regarding the single point of access into what was becoming an ever larger cul-de-sac in East Herts.  He also expressed concerns that a majority of the roads within the development would remain in private ownership.  He queried whether any discussions had taken place with the applicant in respect of the remit of a management company to maintain the road network on this site.

The Director stated that the single point of access had always been included in the plans for this site but Members were reminded that an additional emergency vehicle access was proposed from Evergreen Road.  Members were advised that Hertfordshire Highways Officers were satisfied that the single point of access was acceptable.

The Director also stated that it was now the policy of County Highways to only adopt the primary roads of most new developments. Members were advised however, that Officers had attached a condition to ensure the creation of a management company to facilitate the management and maintenance of any non-adopted common areas of the site.

Councillor T Page stated that a development of 81 dwellings, many of which were affordable, was a positive step in ensuring provision of homes for young people bringing up families.  He commented however, that there was very little amenity land in a development with a density of 45.5 dwellings per hectare.  He also shared Councillor Alexander’s concerns regarding the single narrow access road to the site.

Councillor D Andrews also expressed concerns regarding the site access and the density of the proposed development.  He also stated that the parking provision of 1.67 spaces per dwelling was a concern, especially when considering the distance between the site and Ware train station and other local amenities.  He also commented that many of the residents would work up or down the A10 corridor and would require at least one car per household.

The Director acknowledged that, whilst the density of dwellings was high, this assimilated well with phase 1 of the development at the Former Trinity Centre and was also in accordance with the previously approved outline application for phase 2.

Members were reminded that outline planning permission had already been approved for 81 dwellings on this site.  The Director also confirmed that there was a triangular area of play space within the site and also a larger area of land to the north that would be given over to the District Council to form a much larger area of amenity land for the combined benefit of both phases of the development.

In response to Members’ concerns regarding car parking, the Director advised that the parking standards are maximum standards.

The Director confirmed that Officers, as well as Officers from County Highways, were satisfied that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 530.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1784/FO, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director referred Members to the additional representations schedule.  Members were advised that Officers had suggested an additional condition to restrict the size of the caravan as the definition of a caravan in planning terms could include a much larger ‘twin unit’ that would be more visible in the surrounding area.

Councillor E Bedford sought clarification that the temporary use would cease after 3 years as this site was within the Green Belt.  The Director confirmed that a 3 year temporary permission was already in place for a log cabin and that after 3 years the applicant could submit an application for a further period or for another form of development.

Members were advised that Enforcement Officers did monitor the timescales for temporary permissions in terms of whether applications were submitted for permanent planning permission.

The Director stated that an applicant would, after the three year period, have to either demonstrate the permanent need for a mobile home on this site or apply for a permanent dwelling at the end of the period permitted for a temporary use.

In response to a further query from Councillor Bedford, the Chairman and the Director confirmed that it was for the applicant to demonstrate the need for a permanent mobile home or dwelling on this site.

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 3/12/1784/FO, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted and subject to the following additional condition:

5.    Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, the permission hereby granted shall be for a single residential mobile home on the site of up to 40sqm in area.

Reason: To ensure that the impact of the development within the Green Belt is an acceptable one in accordance with policies GBC1 and ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2001.

Recommended for Approval.

Dominic Bedford addressed the Committee against the application.  Graham Fisher spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1805/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

In response to an enquiry from Councillor Mrs R Cheswright as to whether Officers knew the outcome of the appeal in respect of application 3/12/0814/FP, the Director confirmed that the appeal decision had not been received by Officers.

Councillor M Alexander stated that he was impressed with the conditions suggested by Officers.  He expressed concerns however, in terms of how these conditions would be enforced.  Councillor D Andrews expressed similar concerns regarding the enforceability of the conditions and the impact of the application on neighbour amenity.

Councillor A Burlton commented that 2, 3 or 4 year old children made a substantial amount of noise when playing in a residential garden environment.  Councillor M Alexander stated that the concept of this application was a lovely idea but a residential garden in a category 3 village was the wrong location.

The Director advised that there was a range of ages that would be catered for by this application, such as younger children up to and including those of school age.  Officers had acknowledged that there would be an impact of the proposed use.

Members were advised that there were controls that could be applied within and beyond the planning system.  Members must consider whether the impact of the application was acceptable in planning terms and also whether the impact on neighbour amenity could be controlled by conditions.  Members were reminded that any conditions must meet the usual 6 standard tests applied nationally.

In response to concerns from Councillors M Alexander, A Burlton and Mrs R Cheswright, the Director confirmed that the maximum number of children catered for would be 20 and Officers had attached a condition stating that there should be no more than 10 children in the garden at any time.

In response to a query from Councillor M Alexander in respect of the enforceability of that condition, the Director stressed that the applicant had a part to play in the form of good and acceptable management of the proposed use.

The Director advised that residents would be able to inform Officers if conditions were not being adhered to.  Members were reminded that the conditions applied by Officers met all of the 6 standard tests and the condition regarding children in the garden had been applied in the past by the planning inspectorate.

Councillor M Alexander proposed and Councillor A Burlton seconded, a motion that application 3/12/1805/FP be refused on the grounds that the proposed use of the site for childcare for up to 20 children would result in an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance to neighbouring occupiers to the detriment of their residential amenity.  It would thereby be contrary to policies ENV1, EDE6 and EDE3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second  ...  view the full minutes text for item 532.

a)          3/12/1496/FP – Recommended for Approval.

b)          3/12/1497LB – Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of applications 3/12/1496/FP and 3/12/1497/LB, planning permission and listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor M Newman commented that the buildings concerned were very notable and architecturally pleasing.  He hoped that the conditions suggested by Officers would reflect the architectural value of these buildings and would be stringently enforced.

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

RESOLVED – that in respect of applications 3/12/1496/FP and 3/12/1497/LB, planning permission and listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

Gillian Gill addressed the Committee against the application.  Salvatore Amico spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1713/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Chairman advised Members that the local ward Member, Councillor Mrs D Hollebon, had requested that it be noted that she was in objection to this application.  Councillor N Symonds, as a local Member, addressed the Committee to express her concerns regarding the size of the proposed extensions to 21 Broadleaf Avenue.  She stated that the application did not respect the amenity of nearby residents’ dwellings.

Councillor Symonds referred to policies ENV1 and ENV5 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.  She highlighted the likely impact of the application in terms of loss of privacy, loss of light and overshadowing for the occupants of 27 Cedar Park.  Councillor P Moore commented that she had visited the site and was also very concerned in respect of the substantial impact and the proximity of the proposed development to 27 Cedar Park.

In response to a query from Councillor M Newman, the Director confirmed that policy ENV5 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 was the most relevant in terms of the impact of the application on neighbour amenity and the impact of the application on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The Director advised that, due to the unusual orientation of 21 Broadleaf Avenue and 27 Cedar Park, any loss of sunlight would be restricted to the early part of the day and Members must consider whether the impact of the proposed development was so significant to justify a refusal of planning permission.

In response to a query from Councillor M Alexander regarding the measured distance between 27 Cedar Park and the proposed extensions, the Director advised that the OS Base measurement was 13 metres compared to the 10 metres referred to by the objecting speaker.  Officers were not able to give a more accurate picture without coming back to Members at a later date.  The Director stressed that any difference in this measurement of the scale identified would not have resulted in a change to his recommendation for approval.

Councillor M Newman commented that the application would result in the built form of 21 Broadleaf Avenue extending across about 95% of the boundary between this property and 27 Cedar Park.  He stated that the built form of 21 Broadleaf Avenue currently extended across approximately 40% of the boundary between the two properties.

Councillor P Moore proposed and Councillor E Bedford seconded, a motion that application 3/12/1713/FP be refused on the grounds that the proposed front extension, by reason of its size, siting and cumulative length with the existing dwelling, would result in an overbearing impact on the occupiers of number 27 Cedar Park.  The proposal was thereby contrary to policies ENV1 and ENV5 of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 534.

(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.