Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors J Dunlop and T Stowe. It was noted that Councillor V Smith was substituting for J Dunlop and Councillor S Bull was substituting for Councillor T Stowe.

The chairman reminded Members and Officers to use the microphones as the meeting was being streamed onto YouTube.

To receive any Members' declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 19 July 2023.

Councillor Buckmaster proposed and Councillor Hill seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2023 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Attendance details – addition of Councillor Smith to the list of the attendees as she had been substituting for Councillor Burt.

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

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2023, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Attendance details – addition of Councillor Smith to the list of the attendees as she had been substituting for Councillor Burt.

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/21/1756/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement, and with delegated authority being granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the Legal Agreement and conditions.

The Team Leader (Strategic Applications) talked about the planning history of the site and summarised in detail the main issues for Members to consider. He presented a series of plans and elevation drawings and detailed the location of the site. He also summarised the use types of all the surrounding buildings on Stansted Road.

The Team Leader (Strategic Applications) said that the resolution of the committee in December 2022 included the option to refuse if the Section 106 agreement had not been completed. Members were now being asked to extend the resolution to permit the signing of the Section 106 agreement.

The Team Leader (Strategic Applications) detailed the amendments to the internal site layout, the pedestrian access improvements, and improvements to bus stops. He mentioned the level access to the building and addressed the committee at length in respect of the Council’s public sector equality duty.

The Team Leader commented on the material considerations in respect of the District Plan and referred to the late representations and additional planning matters within the committee addendum. He said that the representation letter from Tesco’s Agent had raised matters that had been addressed within the report.

Cheryl Sauvery addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Laura Beech spoke for the application.

Councillor Devonshire expressed a concern relating to traffic on Stansted Road during the morning rush hour. He said that upgrading the footpaths would be a waste of time as he did not believe that shoppers from the town centre would walk from there to shop at LIDL on this site.

The Team Leader said that the matter of traffic congestion was considered as part of a traffic assessment submitted by the applicant and considered by Hertfordshire Highways in 2021/22. The increase in traffic was judged to be within acceptable tolerances and the increase did not in itself give rise to a reason to refuse the application. Members were advised that the scheme would not create unsafe highways conditions.

The Team Leader said that improvements to footpaths should be viewed as a benefit of the scheme in terms of encouraging people to walk to the site and a move to a more active and sustainable way of accessing facilities.

Councillor Copley referred to the planning conditions and possible consultation with the resident of 289 Stansted Road to better understand the needs of the disabled resident at that address. The Team Leader said that conditions 3 and 35 required that there be consultation and liaison with the occupiers of 289 Stansted Road in respect of landscaping and boundary treatments.

Members were advised that Officers would only discharge that condition if it had been demonstrated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 147.

Recommended for Refusal

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/23/0775/FUL, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report.

The Planning Case Officer presented the application to the Committee and summarised in detail the main issues for Members to consider. He referred to the planning history and the context of the application and set out the main planning policy considerations for Members to consider.

Valda Edmunds addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Hollebon addressed the Committee as the local ward Member. Councillor Devonshire said that significant weight was behind the fact that the ward councillor and Bishop’s Stortford Town Council were in favour of the application.

Councillor Copley asked for some clarity as to whether there was any way for the application to be approved without it setting a precedent. She asked if there was any element of the application that could be changed which would make officers feel that the scheme could be approved.

The Planning Officers said that were Members to approve the application, the grant of the planning permission would become a material consideration for future applications in the immediate area and the wider Thorley Park estate. He said that amendments to the application had been considered and policy HOU12 was of significant relevance to this application in terms of retaining these areas. Members were advised that landscaping scheme conditions would not overcome the harm that result from this planning application being approved.

The Team Leader (Strategic Applications) said that the scheme that was before Members was being considered and Officers had not identified any changes or conditions that could overcome their concerns and there were no changes that could be made to support a grant of planning permission. He mentioned shortcomings in terms of the lack of arboriculture surveys and compliance with the development plan and in particular policy HOU12.

The Chairman set out some matters relating to the distinctive characteristics of the area, and in particular the footpaths and very short roads. She also commented on the wider context of the application and referred to the significant weight of relevant policy connections.

Councillor Smith expressed a concern that this area was not being maintained. She said that the ownership did not seem to be in dispute and asked if there was anything that could be done to ensure it was better maintained. She said that she was not confident that fencing it off would prevent dog fouling on the periphery of the proposed fencing.

Following some comments from Members, the Legal Services Manager reminded the Committee that planning decisions had to be made in the context of how development plan policies were material to an application for planning permission. She said that decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless there were material planning considerations that indicated otherwise. Members were reminded that there were policy justifications for refusing the application and the Committee should bear that in mind and think about material planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 148.

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/23/0440/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement, and with delegated authority being granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the Legal Agreement and conditions.

The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee and summarised in detail the main issues for Members to consider. The Officer detailed the first and second floor plans and summarised in detail the existing elevations on 55 – 61 South Street and 2 – 4 Station Road. She said that no affordable units were proposed, and she set out the proposed housing mix of the 19 residential units.

Members were advised that the applicant had submitted a financial viability assessment which had been reviewed by independent assessors which had concluded that the scheme would be unviable in the sense that this term was understood within the planning system. The Planning Officer said that the application, if granted, would be subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement which would contain financial contributions as detailed in section 10 of the report.

The Planning Officer said that there was provision for 24 cycle spaces, 19 of which would be for residents and 5 for use by members of the public. She set out the previous historic use of the ground floor in the former use class A1 retail and use class A3 food and drink, both of which now fell within in use class E.

Councillor Watson asked for clarification as to how many recycling bins were to be provided. The Planning Officer said that the conditions could be amended to ensure that details in respect of recycling bins met with the approval of the local planning authority.

Councillor Devonshire expressed a concern that there was no affordable proposed as part of the application. Councillor Buckmaster expressed a concern that the proposed extra second floor being quite overbearing against the neighbouring properties. She questioned the need for more studio flats in Bishop’s Stortford.

Councillor Watson asked for some clarification in respect of the tilted balance and the lack of affordable housing supply. The Team Leader (Strategic Applications) said that weight was given to the provision of housing and in this instance, the benefits outweighed the limited harm that had been identified. He said that scheme had been judged to be acceptable in terms of the tilted balance and the scheme was broadly compliant with the local plan.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the Conservation and Urban Design Officer considered that the proposed additional scale and design of the second floor was acceptable in the conservation area.

Councillor Copley expressed concerns about the proposed development on a very narrow corner with poor visibility. She expressed a specific concern regarding the narrow vehicular and pedestrian entrance right on a blind corner junction.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the county council’s transport advisers had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

(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.

To consider such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration and is not likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information.

There was no urgent business.