Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/13/1513/FO, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor P Moore expressed concerns that this was a retrospective application that showed a lack of respect for the formal consultative process.  She stated that an approval of this application would send the wrong message to the applicant and the wider community of East Herts.

Councillor D Andrews commented on whether the workspace in the live work units had been fully utilised.  He also sought clarification in respect of whether Members were approving the removal of an onerous condition or granting retrospective planning permission.

Councillor E Bedford expressed his concern that this was a retrospective application.  He referred to whether the application was to be determined in the same way as if it was not retrospective.  He stated that, in his view, the proposed development made very little difference to the site.

Councillor T Page commented that the application concerned him from the point of view of a lack of transparency.  He hoped that the Minutes would reflect the fact that there had been a recent dialogue of communication between Officers and the applicant.

Councillor M Alexander stated that Members did not like retrospective applications as they took away the possibility of attaching additional conditions.  He stated that Members might have added conditions on this application covering a bat survey, materials of construction and also the hours of construction.

Councillor Alexander stated that he could see no reason why this application should be approved and there should be a discussion with the applicant and Officers to establish whether Longcroft was being used to its full potential.

The Director confirmed that the application was retrospective in nature.  Members were however, advised that the Committee should determine the application using the same set of policies as if the application had been submitted in the usual way.  Members were advised that all of the correct process had been followed prior to this application being brought to Committee.

The Director advised that although this was a Green Belt location, the Council’s planning policies were largely supportive of the conversion of a modest area of floor space of 56 metres squared.  Members were further advised that the Council’s policies did not apply a sequential approach to whether a parent property should be used as office space in preference to the upper floor of a detached garage.

Councillor P Moore proposed and Councillor N Symonds seconded, a motion that application 3/13/1513/FO be deferredto enable Officers to consider further information necessary to determine the application in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.  Councillor T Page requested that his abstention from voting be recorded.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/13/1513/FO, planning permission be deferredto enable Officers to consider further information necessary to determine the application in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee.