Agenda item

a) 3/13/1000/FP – Recommended for Approval.

b) 3/13/1183/OP – Recommended for Approval.

Mr Baker addressed the Committee against the application.  Mr Phillips spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to the applicants entering into legal obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of applications 3/13/1000/FP and 3/13/1183/OP, planning permission and outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.  He drew Members’ attention to the additional representations which had been submitted after the agenda had been dispatched. 

The Director of Neighbourhood Services stated that the main issue was the absence of an up to date District Plan and that the Council did not have the ability to demonstrate the supply of land over a five year period but that a robust approach was being taken by the government nationally to allow development to come forward.  He commented that, in relation to planning policy, if significant harm, “the high test”, could not be demonstrated, then applications for planning permission should be approved.  He drew Members’ attention to the changes that the applicant had put forward following concerns expressed and negotiation with Officers.

Councillor J Jones, as a ward member, stated that the application was premature in that a District Plan was not yet available.  He acknowledged that housing would come to Buntingford but that this was a “hostile application” in a location within the town, which nobody wanted.  Councillor Jones said that there had been no reasonable consultation with the Town Council and residents by the developer and that the applicant was using the vulnerability of Buntingford in the absence of a District Plan.   He referred to the fact that the location was not within the natural valley to the east of the town and that the application would dominate the town from an elevated position. 

Councillor J Jones expressed concern regarding the proposed mini roundabout and the logistics of its use by the Funeral Service and stated that the cemetery proposed was not in a suitable location.  He referred to the draft District Plan which stated that this was the least favourable location for such an application.  Councillor Jones stated that for localism to succeed, the application needed to be refused on grounds of prematurity.

Councillor S Bull stated that it had been fundamental to refuse the previous application on the grounds of prematurity and that it still remained a valid reason for this application.  He explained that the whole site was in a rural area and that the site was less suitable than other sites in the town.  Councillor Bull referred to previous planning applications which had been approved and that housing provision was already in excess of what was anticipated in the draft District Plan.  He suggested that it should be refused for a number of planning reasons including Policies GBC2 and GBC3, transport policy and policy SD1.  

Councillor Bull referred to the application’s close proximity to the school, accessibility problems and the unsuitability of the proposed new cemetery.  He acknowledged that the applicants had made a number of changes to the application but considered that these were minor in nature and would have a substantial impact on local properties.  In response to a query from Councillor P Moore concerning sustainability, he stated that other sites were more sustainable in terms of transport. 

Councillor A Burlton reminded Members that an earlier application by the developer was awaiting a decision by the Planning Inspector.  He questioned why Members were being urged to make a decision prior to a decision being reached on the earlier application.  The Director of Neighbourhood Services reminded Members of the background adding that the applicant preferred to obtain a permission via the Council rather than through the appeal process.  Also, Members did not have to make a decision on the proposal but that this did not indicate a pro active approach and indeed, might make the Council vulnerable to challenge in terms of unreasonableness.

Councillor M Alexander urged Members to be consistent in their decision making.

Councillor G Jones referred to the provision of the infrastructure and whether this could be accommodated by the proposed contribution by the developer.  The Director of Neighbourhood Services explained how the figure had been arrived at and the role of other services in the process.

Councillor M Newman referred to the dilemma Members faced in approving or refusing the application, adding that the basis of a defence on appeal was tenuous, of the likelihood of the applicant winning and of the possibility of them being awarded costs against the Council.

Councillor G Williamson stated that the land was Green Belt and therefore contrary to policy GBC3.

Councillor N Symonds commented that not much had changed from the previous application and that Members needed to observe localism and refuse the application.  She cited the planning policies which she felt the application contravened.

In response to a query from Councillor K Crofton regarding a suggestion to delete the cemetery and replace this with sports facilities, the Director of Neighbourhood Services explained that minor changes could be covered by conditions but a substantial change of this nature would have to be the subject of further negotiation.

The Chairman stated that Buntingford had been targeted by developers who were there to make money.  She urged Members to consider carefully the planning reasons for refusal, if so minded.  The Chairman asked whether the Council could defer the application so that further consultation could take place with the Town Council.  The Director of Neighbourhood Services explained that consultation should preferably have initially been carried out by the developer but it had in any event been undertaken by the Council as part of process.

The Director reminded Members that the land in question was not Green Belt land but was identified in the Local Plan as rural area beyond the green belt.  He explained the pressures on the Council of finding suitable areas on which to allow residential development around the five main towns in the District.  He reminded Members which previous planning policies had been cited in the earlier refusal and urged Members to be cautious, given the circumstances explained, if they were minded to refuse the application before them. 

The Director stated that Members needed to articulate where the application was failing in terms of the “significant harm” test.  It seemed that Members felt this was in relation to the infrastructure.

Councillor S Bull proposed and Councillor D Andrews seconded, a motion that applications 3/13/1000/FP and 3/13/1183/OP be refused on the grounds that they were contrary to Policies GBC2 and GBC3 and SD1.

After being put the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee rejected the recommendations of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED –  that (A) in respect of planning application 3/13/1000/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.             The site lies in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt as defined in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review, April 2007, where development will only be allowed for certain specific purposes.  The proposals do not represent an acceptable form of development in that respect and are, therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of policies GBC2 and GBC3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.  Prior to the publication of the East Herts District Plan, Part 1: Strategy, development at this time would prejudice the assessment process currently underway which will lead to the identification of land and the preferred strategy for residential and other development across the district.  The proposals are therefore contrary to the objectives set out in that respect in the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.             The proposed development, if permitted to proceed in advance of a full assessment of the impact of this and other potential development in the town, which may come forward through the District Plan process, will constitute an unsustainable form of development, particularly in relation to the impact and demand placed upon education, public transport, health facilities and local leisure provision.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policy SD1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(B)   in respect of application 3/13/1183/OP that planning permission be refusedfor the following reasons:

1.             The site lies in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt as defined in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review, April 2007, where development will only be allowed for certain specific purposes.  The proposals do not represent an acceptable form of development in that respect and are, therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of policies GBC2 and GBC3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.  Prior to the publication of the East Herts District Plan, Part 1: Strategy, development at this time would prejudice the assessment process currently underway which will lead to the identification of land and the preferred strategy for residential and other development across the district.  The proposals are therefore contrary to the objectives set out in that respect in the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.             The proposed development, if permitted to proceed in advance of a full assessment of the impact of this and other potential development in the town, which may come forward through the District Plan process, will constitute an unsustainable form of development, particularly in relation to the impact and demand placed upon education, public transport, health facilities and local leisure provision.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policy SD1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework.