Agenda item

Recommended for Refusal.

Ralph Bintley addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/13/1891/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor M Carver, as the local ward Member, stated that he hoped Members had examined the location and setting of the proposed development.  He referred to the strict policy position that was in place to safeguard the openness and character and appearance of the rural area.  He stated however, that this situation was a case of the strict policy being applied to the letter without the full contextual setting of the proposals being considered by Officers.

Councillor Carver stated that the site was surrounded by houses on 3 sides and was hidden by trees on the 4^th side.  He stated that the application constituted a very suitable non intrusive backland development with very little or no impact.  He commented that there had been no objections from internal and external statutory consultees on this application.

Councillor Carver referred to the comments of the Council’s Conservation Officer, who had recommended approval of the application and had also commented that the mass, scale, design and use of materials would not be dissimilar to and would be reflective of the scale and design of the existing dwelling known as Newtons.

The Conservation Officer had also stated that the proposed development was in keeping with the appearance of the area and would have little impact upon the setting of the adjacent listed building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Councillor Carver concluded that there had been no objections from Much Hadham Parish Council and a majority of local neighbours were supportive of the application.  Members were urged to reject the Officer’s recommendation and approve the application subject to appropriate planning conditions.

Councillor D Andrews stated that he agreed with all the comments made by the public speaker and the local ward Member that this application would do very little harm.  He commented that he was impressed regarding the lack of objection to the proposed development.

Councillor J Jones proposed and Councillor S Bull seconded, a motion that application 3/13/1891/FP be granted on the grounds that the proposed development was in keeping with the surrounding area and would have very little impact.

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.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/13/1891/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.            Three Year Time Limit (1T12)

2.            Programme of archaeological work (2E02)

3.            Approved Plans (2E10) “insert 18:10:13:1; 18:10:13:2; 18:10:13:3; 18:10:13:4; 18:10:13:5; 18:10:13:6; 18:10:13:7; 18:10:13:8; 18:10:13:9; 18:10:13:10

4.            Samples of materials (2E13)

5.            Tree/hedge retention & protection (4P05)

6.            Landscape design proposals (4P12) a, b, c, d, e, I, j, k, l

7.            Landscape works implementation (4P13)

8.            Hours of working – plant and machinery (6N05)

Directives:

1.            Street naming and numbering (19SN)

2.            Groundwater protection zone (28GP) insert “Standon”

3.            Unsuspected contamination (33UC)

4.            01OL1 (Other Legislation)

Summary of Reasons for Decision

East Herts Council has considered the applicant’s proposal in a positive and proactive manner with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (Minerals Local Plan, Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD 2012 and the ’saved’ policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007); the National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2012 (as amended).  The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies and the limited harm to the character and appearance of the surroundings is that permission should be granted.