Agenda and draft minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors R Buckmaster and A Holt. It was noted that Councillor S Bull was substituting for Councillor Buckmaster.

The Chair introduced himself, the Vice-Chair and the Officers and the Executive Member for Planning and Growth. He reminded Members and Officers to use their microphones as the meeting was being webcasted.

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 22 January 2025.

Councillor Devonshire proposed and Councillor Estop seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2025 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2025, be confirmed as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/24/1457/OUT, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report, and subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.

The Principal Planning Officer highlighted the location of the site adjacent to but outside of the village boundary of Standon and Puckeridge, which was designated as a group one village in the District Plan. Members were advised that the location of the site outside of the village boundary meant that the land was part of the rural area beyond the green belt.

The Principal Planning Officer presented a series of plans, visuals, and detailed elevation drawings. He set out the services and facilities that were available in the vicinity of the site and explained that the site was screened by vegetation along the highway verge of the A120 and was also screened by vegetation along the southern site boundary.

The Principal Planning Officer detailed the key features of the application and talked about the changing land levels within and around the site. He detailed the location of the proposed vehicular access and emergency vehicular access and talked about biodiversity net gain and flood risk.

The Principal Planning Officer detailed the relevant planning history and said that the application would deliver a new and upgraded shared footway and cycleway. He set out in detail the key issues for Members to consider when determining the application and referred the Committee to the published late representations summary.

Lorea Johnston addressed the committee in support of the application. Jacqueline Veater addressed the committee on behalf of Standon Parish Council. Members asked questions and points of clarification of the speakers.

Councillor Bull asked about how the public and private transport infrastructure was to be improved in that particular development. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the heads of terms of the Section 106 legal agreement had identified £250,000 to go towards bus services.

Matthew Armstrong, Hertfordshire Highways, said that the £250,000 was to improve bus services in the vicinity, and this figure was calculated on the basis of £50,000 per year over 5 years and the idea was to enhance weekend services.

Councillor Copley asked for some clarity as to the viability of the cycle path. George Fermer, Hertfordshire Highways, explained that the existing lane was only to South Road. He said that following discussions with the developer, this path would go from the development site to South Fields and there would be drop kerb crossings over the side roads and there would be a buffer zone between the highway, the kerb and the cycle way and this buffer would range from minimum of 0.5m up to a 1m buffer zone. Members were advised that there would be a pedestrian rail at the emergency access to prevent access to the highway. There would also be a grass verge and a foliage adjacent to the A120, and the cycleway would link to local facilities  ...  view the full minutes text for item 379.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/22/2321/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to a suitable legal agreement and subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

The Planning Officer highlighted the location of the site and presenting a series of elevation drawings for the existing care home and the plan drawings for the replacement 52 bedroomed care home. He summarised the key features of the application and set out in detail the main issues for Members to consider when determining the application.

Philip Bond addressed the committee in objection to the application. Tom Edmunds and Ben Garlick spoke for the application. Councillor Williams addressed the committee in respect of his concerns as the local ward Member.

Councillor Devonshire asked what would happen to the residents in the care home during the construction phase. The Planning Officer confirmed that the care home was sitting empty on his most recent visit a week ago.

Councillor Estop said that there was a conservation issue in respect of the relationship to the listed building. She referred in particular to the materials of the listed building. The Planning Officer summarised the materials in place at Highfield Lodge, which were very similar to the existing care home. Councillor Stowe said that he observed a slate roof, and bricks were of a type that was made locally.

Councillor Stowe said that regarding conditions 7 and 16, would this include using some of the demolition materials back on the site where possible. The Planning Officer said that condition 7 would be more related to reusing materials as this matter had to be agreed with the County Council waste team. Members were advised condition 16 was more to do with the proper disposal of materials so that they were disposed of in an ad hoc manner.

Councillor Hill asked for was given some clarity in respect of the advantages of the new care over the old one that was due to be demolished. The Planning Officer answered a number of questions from Members in respect of conditions.

Councillor Watson asked about the considerations in respect of angled windows, obscured glazing, and the issue of overlooking. The Planning Officer said that trees were already planted within Highfield Lodge and the windows were facing towards the rear of the site and were facing away from the overlooking towards the private amenity area.

Councillor Carter commented on condition 36 and swift bricks and the suggestion from various wildlife organisations that this should be strengthened so that details of integral swift bricks and bat boxes were provided before any above ground development took place.

The Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications Team) that it would be reasonable to request that details of integral swift bricks prior to commencement of above ground development. He said that Officers were looking at a set of words that might require them to be constructed prior to the construction of the roof level.

Councillor Copley asked about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 380.

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.