Agenda and draft minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors V Burt, I Devonshire and A Holt. It was noted that Councillors S Bull, T Deffley and V Smith were substituting for Councillors A Holt, I Devonshire and V Burt.

The Chair welcomed everyone present at the meeting and those that were watching online. He introduced the Officers and reminded everyone to use the microphones for the webcast.

The Chair said that this was the last meeting of the Development Management Committee for Victoria Wilders, after 8 years of supporting the committee with advice as the Legal Services Manager since September 2016. He thanked Victoria on behalf of the committee and wished her well for the future.

Councillor Deering added his thanks to Victoria from his time as Chair of the committee for a number of years before the elections in May 2023.

To receive any Members' declarations of interest.

Councillor Buckmaster declared a personal interest in application 3/23/2062/FUL, on the grounds that she was a Member of Sawbridgeworth Town Council. She said that she was able to determine the application with an open mind.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 13 November 2024.

Councillor Stowe proposed and Councillor Buckmaster seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2024 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair, subject to the following amendment:

Delete in the resolution of minute 232:

1.           The application did not with policies DES1, BUNT1, GBR2 and the Neighbourhood Plan.

Replace with:

1.                     The application did not comply with policies DES1, BUNT1, GBR2 and the Neighbourhood Plan.

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

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2024, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair, subject to the following amendment:

Delete in the resolution of minute 232:

1.           The application did not with policies DES1, BUNT1, GBR2 and the Neighbourhood Plan.

Replace with:

1.           The application did not comply with policies DES1, BUNT1, GBR2 and the Neighbourhood Plan.

Recommended for Approval

At this point in the meeting (19:08), Councillor Watson (Chair) proposed, and Councillor Hill seconded, a motion for a 5-minute adjournment from 19:10 to 19:15, to allow Members time to read the late representations summary. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

The Chair said that there was an error in the report in that the application had been called in by Councillor Angus Parsad-Wyatt, and not by Councillor Eric Buckmaster as stated in the report.

The Chair reminded Members that they should not discuss the application during the 5-minute adjournment period.

RESOLVED – that the meeting be adjourned for 5 minutes from 19:10 to 19:15.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/23/2062/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

The planning case officer summarised the application and set out in detail the key issues for Members to consider. She said that her presentation would also cover listed building application 3/23/2185/LBC, and Members were reminded that the internal alterations requited listed building consent only and therefore formed no part of the considerations of the full application.

The planning case officer presented the committee with a series of elevation drawings and said that there had been no objection from Hertfordshire Highways. The planning case officer advised the committee of the main planning considerations and advised of the neutral impact on the listed building and the Sawbridgeworth conservation area.

Sarah Glover addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Councillor N Parsad-Wyatt addressed the committee on behalf of Sawbridgeworth Town Council.

Councillor A Parsad-Wyatt addressed the committee as an East Herts local ward Member. The Committee debated the application and asked questions of the planning officers and the Environmental Health Officer. The officers responded to the questions asked by the Committee.

The Legal Services Manager said that the impact of the proposed development in the context of the four licensing objectives was covered by the separate licensing regime. She detailed the four licensing objectives for Members.

The planning case officer advised that the proposed hours of operation were covered by a condition and were for a closure time of 11 pm on Sundays and midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. The Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications Team) said that the hours of operation could be further curtailed by the separate licensing regime in respect of the sale of alcohol or live music. He said that his advice was that this satisfactorily addressed the noise concerns.

Councillor Estop mentioned the possibility of a proposal to defer the application to secure more information in respect of the proposed operation so that was a better understanding of the planned activities on the site. The Legal Services Manager said that Members needed to be mindful of the statutory timescales for the council determining the application, and the risk of an appeal for non-determination of the application.

Councillor Watson proposed, and Councillor Hill seconded,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 261.

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/23/2185/LBC, listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

The planning case officer summarised the application and recapped on the key issues for Members to consider. She referred to the comments of the Conservation Officer, and the conclusion drawn was that the proposed alterations would result in less than substantial harm to the listed building.

Members were advised that the conservation team considered that the significant public benefit of bringing the listed building back into use, supporting the long term of preservation of the heritage asset and the economics benefits together with the positive impact of supporting the vibrant and mixed-use area would outweigh any harm that was significant to the heritage asset.

The Committee debated the application and asked questions of the planning officers. The officers responded to the questions raised. The planning case officer confirmed that the signage formed part of the listed building consent application, and this matter was also covered by an informative requiring the submission of an advertisement consent application for the signage.

Councillor Stowe proposed, and Councillor Carter seconded, a motion that application 3/23/2185/LBC be granted listed building consent subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

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

RESOLVED – that application 3/23/2185/LBC be granted listed building consent subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/23/1641/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

The planning case officer summarised the application and set out in detail the key planning policy issues for Members to consider. He presented the detailed ground floor and first floor plans and described the proposed layout of the site. He also detailed the relevant planning history and referred to the previous application for 3 dwellings.

Mr Tim Waygood addressed the committee in support of the application as the applicant. The Committee debated the application and asked questions of the planning officers. The officers responded to the questions raised by the Committee.

Members were advised that there were no grounds for refusing the application on the grounds of design quality, due to the similar appearance of the proposed dwellings in comparison with those already approved. The planning case officer said that the proposed development was appropriate in this location, and there was already a permission in place for 3 residential dwellings.

Councillor Carter spoke about the positive benefits of the application for the wider community. She supported the point that had been made that the buildings were at the end of their useful life and the proposed development was a big improvement.  She acknowledged the problem of availability of rural housing in rural areas for younger people.

Councillor Carter referred to condition 19 in respect of swift bricks and the details of biodiversity enhancements, and a request for 16 swift bricks to be integrated into buildings and for details of these measures to be submitted for approval at an earlier stage i.e., not just before occupation but before above ground development had commenced.

Councillor Carter proposed, and Councillor Buckmaster seconded, a motion for an amendment to condition 19 regarding biodiversity so that the condition specified 16 integrated swift bricks with details required to be submitted before above ground development had commenced.

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

Councillor Buckmaster proposed, and Councillor Dunlop seconded, a motion that application 3/23/1641/FUL be granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report, to include an amendment to condition 19 regarding biodiversity so that the proposed 16 swift bricks were integrated and with details required to be submitted before above ground development had commenced.

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

RESOLVED – that application 3/23/1641/FUL be granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report, and subject to the revised condition 19 regarding biodiversity so that the proposed 16 swift bricks were integrated with details required to be submitted before above ground development had commenced.

(A)  Appeals against refusal of Planning Permission/ non?determination.

(B)  Planning Appeals Lodged.

(C)       Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing Dates.

(D)      Planning Statistics.

Councillor Stowe complimented the Officers on the outcome of the appeal decisions from the planning inspectorate.

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.