Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors D Andrews, G Lawrence and P Moore.  It was noted that Councillors N Symonds and G Williamson were in attendance as substitutes for Councillors P Moore and D Andrews respectively.

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

The Chairman stated that as Members were aware, Councillor G Lawrence had suffered a heart attack, she commented that she was sure the whole Committee would join her in wishing Councillor G Lawrence a speedy recovery.

The Chairman advised that she had agreed to accept an urgent item of business onto the agenda in the interests of the efficient operation of the service and to avoid delay.  This related to 3/11/2137/SV – Modification of a Section 106 agreement in respect of the commercial buildings approved under ref: 3/04/0657/OP by the removal of a £125,000 Highways Contribution at 95-97 London Road, Bishop’s Stortford, CM23 3DU for Tanners Wharf Ltd.

The Chairman advised that application 3/11/2137/SV would be determined prior to application 3/12/1094/FP.  The Chairman reminded Members of the special meeting of the Committee due to be held on Tuesday 25 September 2012 in the Charis Centre, Bishop’s Stortford at 7.00 pm.

The Chairman also reminded Members of the briefing due to held in Bishop’s Stortford in respect of the sites referred to as Bishop’s Stortford North.  The Chairman referred to the Secretary of State decisions relating to the schools applications in Bishop’s Stortford and thanked Officers for their hard work in respect of these applications.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 15 August 2012.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 August 2012 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to the applicant entering into an agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of application 3/12/0554/OP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Director referred Members to the additional representations schedule, in particular the amendments to plan references detailed in the report.  Members were advised that Officers had recommended that the applicant be required to either, make highway improvements to the A414 to create a new Pelican Crossing or to provide a financial contribution of £60,000 towards such works.

The Director also stated that, further to Paragraph 7.27 of the Committee report, Essex County Council had been informed of highway improvements on their land requested by Hertfordshire Highways and Essex County Council had not raised any objections.

Councillor M Newman, as the local ward Member, stated that a previous application had not progressed as no agreement had been reached with that particular developer.  He stressed that this application had resulted in a very positive dialogue between the applicant, the Parish Council and Officers.

Councillor M Newman praised all the parties for the very positive approach that had been taken towards this application.  He acknowledged the reservations of the Parish Council regarding such a large application. 

Councillor M Newman was pleased to see that the reservations of the Parish Council regarding affordable housing had been incorporated into the proposed conditions.

Councillor M Newman concluded that this scheme offered an ideal compromise between residential floor space, affordable housing and was a very well balanced proposal for what was currently a derelict industrial site.

Councillor G Jones praised the scheme as a good outline application.  He referred to the concerns of Officers regarding the regimented nature of the internal designs of the proposed development.  Councillor G Jones stated that he hoped a higher standard of design would come forward with the reserved matters application.

Councillor T Page expressed concern regarding the location of a pelican crossing on a busy section of the A414.  He also expressed concern regarding instructing Essex County Council in this matter.  He queried whether an alternative provision was possible, such as a tunnel in association with the railway bridge.

The Director advised that Essex County Council would be fully involved in respect of all aspects of the legal agreement process and the pelican crossing.  Members were advised that it was not for East Herts Council to instruct Essex County Council where to locate a pelican crossing.  The Director stressed that other alternative crossings had the potential to be financially prohibitive and Members should determine the application based on the information detailed in the report.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that, subject to the applicant entering into an agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, application 3/12/0554/OP be granted subject to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 297.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1083/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor A Burlton referred to the suggested condition that a maximum of 20 dogs shall be exercised or contained within the land at any one time, he queried whether this condition was enforceable.

The Director stated that, whilst the Authority would not have a dog warden on site, Members were advised that if Officers became aware that an applicant was regularly breaching that condition then Officers would investigate.  The Director stressed that Officers were of the opinion that the condition in respect of the number of dogs on site was enforceable.

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 3/12/1083/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

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.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/2137/SV, Members confirm that, if they had been able to determine the application, they would have agreed to the variation of the Section 106 agreement to remove the financial contribution detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director advised that, at the August meeting of the Committee, Officers had recommended a variation of the Section 106 agreement pursuant to application 3/04/0657/OP, to remove a highways contribution of £125,000 towards the Bishop’s Stortford Transportation Plan.

The Director reminded the Committee that Members determined that a variation of the Section 106 agreement be deferred to enable Officers to negotiate with the applicant with regard to the potential for phased or staged payments of the current highways contribution.

The Committee was advised that the applicant had not responded to Officers requests regarding negotiation but had lodged an appeal against non determination of the application.  The Director stated that Officers were now seeking to ascertain Members’ views on the likely decision of the Committee if Members had determined the application, so that Officers could advance a case at the forthcoming appeal.

Members were advised that, should the Committee resolve to waive the highways contribution of £125,000, then the applicant would be requested to withdraw the appeal.

In response to a query from Councillor G Jones, the Director advised that if Members decided to waive or amend the Section 106 highways contribution, the applicant would have to apply separately to Hertfordshire County Council and there was a separate appeal process if the County Council rejected that application.

Councillor G Jones stressed that the proposed development would impact on highway infrastructure and there should be a contribution towards such infrastructure.  He stated that the Section 106 agreement was not a deciding factor in terms of whether the application was implemented if planning permission was approved.

Councillor G Jones stated that the Hertfordshire County Council agreed figure of £88,590 could be applied and he stressed that the highways contribution should not be removed completely.  The Director emphasised that the Committee could reduce the Highways contribution to £88,590. Members were advised however that two sets of consultants had stated that the application was not viable with a highways contribution of either £125,000 or £88,590.

Councillor Mrs R Cheswright stated that there was no suggestion that the development was unviable because of the highways contribution or that removal of that contribution would make the scheme viable so there was no reason why the contribution should be completely removed.

Councillor N Symonds stated that the flats on London Road were virtually completed, whereas the office block currently looked awful.  She stated that the highways contribution should be waived to ensure that all development on the site was completed.

In response to a query from Councillor M Newman, the Director stated that it was appropriate for Members to consider the viability assessments then consider whether to seek a Highways Contribution and at what level.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 299.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to the applicant entering into an agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of application 3/12/1094/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

In response to a query from Councillor A Burlton, the Director stated that Officers considered that, as the site formed part of the wider ASR land, then the current development should be considered as part of that larger site and there should be a proportionate contribution towards local services.

Members were advised that the reference to “Youth” should have read “Youth Facilities” and the funding for a community centre would apply to the closest centre to the site before the wider Bishop’s Stortford area was considered.

Councillor T Page stated that this was a well balanced application and the proposed development was in keeping with existing dwellings.  He expressed concern however, that the Section 106 Legal Obligation was being considered as part of the wider ASR sites in Bishop’s Stortford.

In response to queries from Councillors G Jones and T Page, the Director advised that the level of Section 106 Planning Obligations was largely based on the size of a development, in particular the number of bedrooms.  The wider implications of the development of a site may also be taken into account.

The Director advised that the commuted sum for affordable housing maybe available prior to completion of all 4 of the private dwellings, or prior to their occupation.  This would be set out in the Legal Agreement.  Members were advised that Officers had been made aware that contributions towards primary and nursery education were not required in this case.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that, subject to the applicant entering into an agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, application 3/12/1094/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that, subject to the applicant entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of application 3/12/1094/OP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Thomas addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1196/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director referred to paragraphs 1.8 to 1.10 of the report and Members were advised that the appeal Inspector granted Listed Building Consent for the development but dismissed the appeal on the full planning application.

Members should also note that the inspector stated that the Council had been unreasonable in refusing the 2011 applications as there had been no material change in planning policy since the 2005 approval, the inspector had therefore made an award of costs against the Council.

The Director advised that the inspector had judged the proposed development to be acceptable.  The inspector had concluded that the development would have had a negligible impact on the listed High Street building and would not appear over-dominant or out of scale and would sit comfortably with the street scene along White House Close and the surrounding Conservation Area.

The Director stated that, as far as the listed building was concerned, this application was an improvement on a lapsed planning consent from 2005.  The appeal inspector had also stated that the 2005 planning permission should carry substantial weight as this application was such a significant improvement.

The Director stated that Officers consider that, given the original permission and the comments of the Planning Inspector on the recently refused proposal, there were no justifiable reasons to object to this latest scheme, in terms of its impact on the setting of the listed building or the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Members were also advised that, following a consultation response from No 1 Whitehouse Close, Officers were suggesting additional conditions in respect of working hours and the retention of obscured glazing.

Councillor S Rutland-Barsby commented that there were very few reasons to object to this application on planning grounds.  She also stated that the hours of operation merited careful consideration due to the location of the site and it’s proximity to other dwellings.

Councillor S Rutland-Barsby also commented that concerns regarding “school runs” would be difficult to mitigate as this was a private road over which the Authority had no jurisdiction.

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 3/12/1196/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Refusal.

Mrs Smeeth addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1130/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons now detailed.

The Director referred to the 9 previous applications on the site since 1997, all but one of which were refused on Green Belt grounds.  Furthermore, two of these refusals had been upheld on appeal.  Members were advised that new dwellings were not normally permitted in the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Officers were of the view that the previous commercial operations had blended into the landscape and Officers had not accepted the Applicant’s view that the application represented limited infilling of previously developed land.

The Director stated that the appeal inspector had stated in 2005 that the proposed development would result in an undesirable consolidation of development on London Road.  The Inspector had further commented that the proposed development represented an undesirable incursion onto land that was currently open.

Members were advised that the NPPF stated that the Committee should give substantial weight to any harm to the Green Belt.  Officers were of the opinion that this application was inappropriate in this location.

In response to a query from Councillor T Page, the Director confirmed that Spellbrook was not a category 1 or 2 village and was washed over as Green Belt land.

Councillor A Burlton commented that the proposed development of a single dwelling was in between 2 existing blocks of houses with a road to the front of the site.  He stated that there would be no harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Councillor T Page stated that there was very little to show this site and surrounding area was Green Belt land, he commented however that the policy regarding Green Belt land was very clear and the Committee had little option but to adhere to Green Belt policy.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/12/1130/FP be refused planning permission for the reasons now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/1130/FP, planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1194/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

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 3/12/1194/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1195/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

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 3/12/1195/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1196/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

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 3/12/1196/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0972/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

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 3/12/0972/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Enforcement.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of the site relating to E/12/0052/A, Members endorse the view that it was not expedient to issue and serve a planning enforcement notice in respect of the breach of planning control relating to the increased height of the two dwelling houses.

The Director advised that no application had been received to regularise the unauthorised development.  Members were advised that if an application had been submitted, it was the view of Officers that planning permission would not have been be refused.  Officers were of the opinion that the additional 300mm of roof height was not significant enough to cause any harm in the vicinity of the site.

Members were advised that it was not an offence to build development that was not approved.

The Director confirmed that Officers judged that it was not expedient to take enforcement action. In the event of an appeal against any notice, this would be difficult to defend and if no appeal was lodged, Officers would have to consider whether it was expedient to pursue Offences at the magistrate’s court if the offence of failing to comply with enforcement action was committed.

The Director concluded that the issue over whether or not to take Enforcement Action should be considered on a fact and degree basis and expressed the view that a subsequent appeal by the appellant maybe likely be successful.  Officers were firmly of the view that no further action should be taken.

Councillor Mrs R Cheswright expressed her disappointment and frustration that Linden Homes had not responded to Officers’ requests for an application to regularise the unauthorised development.  She commented on how angry she was regarding the attitude of the appellant regarding the unauthorised development.

In response to a query from Councillor M Newman, the Director reiterated that building not in accordance with approved plans was not an offence as such.  An offence was only committed if there was a failure to comply with any enforcement notice.  Members were advised that development could often be larger by a brick or two in height or width and a judgement had to be made on a fact and degree basis as to whether such an amendment would have been approved as part of an original planning application.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, Members endorsed the view that it was not expedient to issue and serve a planning enforcement notice in respect of the breach of planning control relating to the increased height of the two dwelling houses.

RESOLVED – that, in respect of the site relating to E/12/0052/A, Members endorsed the view that it was not expedient to issue and serve a planning enforcement notice in respect of the breach of planning control relating to the increased height of the two dwelling houses.

Enforcement.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of the site relating to E/12/0229/A, enforcement action be authorised on the basis now detailed.

Councillor S Bull commented that this building had been in situ for very many years and it was not possible to determine the use of the building from the main road.  He stated that, if Officers were satisfied that the appellant had not demonstrated a continuous use of the site for the required 4 years, then he would support the recommendation for enforcement action.

In response to a query from Councillor G Jones, the Director stressed that continuous use of a site was judged on a fact and degree basis.  Members were advised that, if a landlord had a 3 to 4 week gap between tenants whilst decorations were carried out, Officers would classify that as continuous use.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the Director’s recommendation for enforcement action to be authorised in respect of the site relating to E/12/0229/A on the basis now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of E/12/0229/A, the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in conjunction with the Director of Internal Services, be authorised to take enforcement action on the basis now detailed.

Enforcement.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of the site relating to E/12/0156/A, enforcement action be authorised on the basis now detailed.

The Chairman advised that she had been asked read out a statement on behalf of the local ward Member, Councillor J Ranger.  Councillor J Ranger had requested that Members accept the Officers recommendation as detailed in the report.

Councillor J Ranger had also stated that as the site of the barn had not been visible from the road the unauthorised extension was not noticed at first by the village.  However, when a letter box was placed at the entrance track to the site and the residents in unauthorised occupation were seen to be using the site for residential purposes for nearly the last two years, concerns were raised.

Councillor J Ranger had then requested that Enforcement Officers visit the site to check out the situation.  As there had been other similar instances in the ward, the Local Member had advised that the Parish Council would like to see appropriate enforcement action taken in this case.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the Director’s recommendation for enforcement action to be authorised in respect of the site relating to E/12/0156/A on the basis now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of E/12/0156/A, the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in conjunction with the Director of Internal Services, be authorised to take enforcement action on the basis now detailed.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services submitted a report updating Members on enforcement statistics and recently authorised enforcement action.  The Committee congratulated the Enforcement Officers for their hard work in what was a challenging aspect of Council business.

Councillor M Alexander commented on the prevalence of the Esbies Estate in the report now submitted.  Councillor S Bull praised the difficult work carried out by the Enforcement Officers.  The Chairman echoed this praise on behalf of the Development Control Committee.

The Committee noted the report as now detailed.

RESOLVED – that the report be noted.

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

(B)  Planning Appeals Lodged.

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

(D)     Planning Statistics (‘To Follow’).

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.