Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Beckett, Fernando and Kemp. It was noted that Councillor Devonshire was substituting for Councillor Kemp.

The Chairman reminded Members that the meeting was being webcasted and might also be broadcasted via YouTube.

The Chairman reminded Members of the special meeting of the Development Management Committee that was in the diary for 16 November 2021 in respect of Gilston applications. He also reminded Members of the site visit and briefings in respect of these applications.

To receive any Members' declarations of interest.

Councillor Andrews said that, in respect of application 3/20/0502/OUT, he sat on a Committee at another Authority that had considered this application as a consultee. He said that he did not feel that he was inhibited from forming an opinion on this application this evening.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 8 September 2021.

Councillor Buckmaster proposed and Councillor Redfern seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2021 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2021, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/20/0502/OUT, outline planning permission be granted subject to a legal agreement and the conditions detailed at the end of the report 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 Principal Planning Officer, on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, referred to an aerial photo of the site which was located within the green belt on the eastern side of Netherfield Lane and to the south of Roydon Road.

Members were advised that whilst the site was outside the village boundary, it was within walking distance of Stanstead Abbotts High Street and was not isolated. The Principal Planning Officer said that the site was currently occupied by offices and storage buildings and some associated parking and external storage areas.

Members were advised that the site had been unoccupied for some time and was classed as previously developed land. The Principal Planning Officer stated that development was not inappropriate in green belt terms provided that this did not impact on openness. Members were advised that this was an outline application with all matters reserved apart from access.

The Committee was advised that appearance, landscaping, layout and scale were not being considered at this time and the application was for the demolition of all existing buildings on the site, removal of hardstanding and redevelopment for B1 business use and 20 residential units. No increase in built volume was proposed by the application.

The Principal Planning Officer presented a series of slides for Members and explained the potential layout of the site. She set out the proposed access arrangements which included improvements to Netherfield Lane between the junction with Roydon Road and the eastern edge of the application site.

Members were advised that the improvements included widening of the road, provision of a footway and tactile paving at crossing points. These measures had all been negotiated with the Highway Authority to improve the accessibility of the site, in particular for pedestrians.

The Principal Planning Officer said that national policy provided an incentive in the form of a financial credit where vacant buildings were brought back into use or demolished to be replaced by new buildings. The financial credit was equivalent to the existing gross floor space of the relevant vacant buildings when the local planning authority calculates any affordable housing contributions that would be sought.

Members were advised that although 20 new units were being provided on the site, Officers could not ask for any affordable housing as there was no increase in overall floor space. The Principal Planning Officer said that the developer had provided evidence that there would be a developer profit of only about 10 percent and this meant that the Section 106 contributions would be reduced for this site.

Members were advised however that the applicant had agreed to pay towards libraries and youth facilities, open  ...  view the full minutes text for item 186.

(D)                Planning Statistics.

RESOLVED – that the following report be noted:

(A)   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.