Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Waite addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of applications 3/14/0528/OP and 3/14/0531/OP, were the Authority in a position to determine the applications, the Council would be minded to grant planning permission without the caveats detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director also recommended that, in respect of applications 3/14/0528/OP and 3/14/0531/OP, the Head of Planning and Building Control, Planning and Legal Services Officers be authorized to further engage with the appellants, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and a minimum of one of the two local ward Members (whilst informing both ward Members at all stages of any relevant action or decision) and that, subject to that consultation, Officers be given delegated authority to formulate, alter, amend and update the Council’s statements and evidence (including appropriate legal agreement matters and conditions), to be submitted to the appeal inquiry in accordance with the relevant timescales.

Councillor S Bull, as the local ward Member, stated that, even without the proposed developments, Buntingford had experienced a 50% growth since 2011.  He reminded the Committee that 1021 dwellings had already been built or had been approved since 2011 and an appeal inspector had stated that over 800 additional dwellings was unsustainable without increased employment.

Councillor Bull commented that employment land did not necessarily mean employment would be taken up.  He concluded that roads were becoming congested and transport was poor at best and schools and doctor’s surgeries were also full.  He urged the Committee not to inflict further housing development on Buntingford.

In response to a query from the Vice–Chairman, the Director advised that the applicant had appealed non-determination on the basis that the Council had not made a decision on the applications within the statutory timescale.  A public inquiry had been called and would commence in January 2015.  The associated evidence was due for submission in October and November.

Members were reminded that the Council’s position was currently unclear as the Committee had not determined these applications.  Members were being asked to establish that position at this meeting.  The Committee was referred to a significant amount of additional information in the additional representations schedule. 

Members were advised that the three main issues were employment, education provision and highways matters and, subsequent to the dispatch of the Committee report, the appellant had agreed to the provision of £6000 funding towards a school site search exercise and a phasing restriction preventing Area 3 (3/14/0531/OP) coming forward for development prior to the identification of a first school site, subject to a long stop date.

The appellant had also agreed to funding provision of £15,000 towards highway modelling and funding provision towards an employment provision fund with the amount to be agreed.  Finally, the appellant had agreed to funding of £75,000 towards the establishment of a local Hopper bus service, paid prior to the occupation of more than 10 dwellings in Area 2, in addition to the sustainable transport contributions.

In response to a further query from the Vice–Chairman, the Director confirmed that the Authority and the appellant were expected to narrow down any areas of difference to ensure that these were as narrow and concise as possible.  If acceptable compromises were reached on all outstanding matters and further work on conditions and a legal agreement was completed satisfactorily, then it would be highly likely that the appeals would not proceed.

Councillor J Jones, as a local ward Member, referred to the applications that had been improved for Buntingford since 2011 with no infrastructure improvements.  He stated that this constituted a 50% increase and Buntingford had no greenbelt protection and no train station.  Councillor J Jones stated that the Wyddial Plateau would be severely damaged by this application and lowering the level of the development a few metres would not avoid such damage.  He referred to the concerns of the fire service and also the unsatisfactory access and egress onto London Road.

Councillor J Jones concluded that Buntingford had taken far above its fair share of the District’s housing allocation and any further development was unsustainable and was contrary to policies GBC2 and GBC3, GBR1 and GRB2 and ENV1.

Councillors N Symonds stated that this application was a step too far Buntingford and the town could not cope with this level of development.  Councillor P Moore commented that, in principle, the applications were acceptable until the infrastructure elements were taken in account.

Councillor G Jones referred back to the points he had made at a previous meeting of the Committee in respect of employment and education.  He highlighted the importance of the timing of the infrastructure facilities for education and employment.  He stated that these applications went against the principles of sustainable development and he was unable to support them.

The Director advised that the level of 800 units, quoted by the Inspector who dealt with the previous appeals at Hare Street Road, was not a threshold beyond which development in the town could not go.  The Inspector had based this comment on the availability of employment.  There was now the possibility of additional employment provision. Members were urged to scrutinise the infrastructure issues very carefully.

The Committee was advised that if all the 1010 units, already with planning permission or proposed, were implemented, then there would be an acknowledged shortfall of 0.5 forms of entry of education provision at first school level.  The appellant had accepted a phasing restriction to ensure further first school education capacity was explored and a site identified before further development could proceed, subject to a long stop date.

The Director emphasised that the health providers had undertaken work to demonstrate to Officers that additional accommodation could be provided at the Health Centre, utilising Section 106 funding once the development was implemented.

The Director advised that a figure of 131 additional units did not represent a 50% increase in dwellings.  That amount would represent a 6% increase, based on the 2011 census.   In response to a query from the Vice–Chairman, the Director updated Members on the numbers of dwellings approved in Buntingford since 2009.

In response to queries from Councillor N Symonds, an Officer from Hertfordshire County Council advised that middle and upper schools, including Freman College, had the potential to expand.  Councillor G Jones emphasised that there must be certainty on education provision before additional housing became a certainty in Buntingford.

Members were advised however that first school provision capacity was not as great and the County Council was seeking the provision of an additional 2 forms of entry (FE) first school site.  Members were also advised that the admissions rules were such that, as demand for middle and upper education increased in Buntingford, there would be less of an inflow permitted from outside the town.

In response to a query from Councillor N Symonds regarding health provision for GPs, Officers confirmed that the funding for capital infrastructure provision, for example a new or expanded GP surgery, could be sought via Section 106 funding.  However, the revenue costs, such as GP and other health worker salaries were costs that are funded via the national tax base.  Those funding arrangements take into account the patient numbers covered by each service.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, in respect of applications 3/14/0528/OP and 3/14/0531/OP, Members agreed that were the Authority in a position to reach a decision on the proposals, the Council would not have been minded to grantplanning permission.  The Councils position was formulated on the following basis:

Education – that the undertaking of a site search exercise in relation to the provision of additional first school capacity was insufficient.  This work needed to be undertaken and the outcome known prior to establishing phasing controls in relation to any subsequent development.  Further clarity in relation to the willingness of the middle and upper schools to implement expansion was also required.

Employment – uncertainty in relation to the delivery of employment needs to be resolved before the development proposals can be supported.

Highways – greater certainty was required in relation to the potential outcome of highway modelling before further development proposals can be supported.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, in respect of application 3/14/0528/OP, the Head of Planning and Building Control, Planning and Legal Services Officers be authorized to further engage with the appellants in relation to the matters detailed in the report now submitted, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and a minimum of one of the two local ward Members (whilst informing both ward Members at all stages of any relevant action or decision) and that, subject to that consultation, Officers be given delegated authority to formulate, alter, amend and update the Council’s statements and evidence (including appropriate legal agreement matters and conditions), to be submitted to the appeal inquiry in accordance with the relevant timescales.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, there being an equality of votes, the Vice–Chairman exercised his casting vote and in respect of application 3/14/0531/OP, the Head of Planning and Building Control, Planning and Legal Services Officers be authorized to further engage with the appellants in relation to the matters detailed in the report now submitted, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and a minimum of one of the two local ward Members (whilst informing both ward Members at all stages of any relevant action or decision) and that, subject to that consultation, Officers be given delegated authority to formulate, alter, amend and update the Council’s statements and evidence (including appropriate legal agreement matters and conditions), to be submitted to the appeal inquiry in accordance with the relevant timescales.

RESOLVED – that (A), in respect of applications 3/14/0528/OP and 3/14/0531/OP,were the Authority in a position to reach a decision on the proposals, the Council would not have been minded to grantplanning permission and the Councils position be formulated on the following basis:

Education – that the undertaking of a site search exercise in relation to the provision of additional first school capacity was insufficient.  This work needed to be undertaken and the outcome known prior to establishing phasing controls in relation to any subsequent development.  Further clarity in relation to the willingness of the middle and upper schools to implement expansion was also required.

Employment – uncertainty in relation to the delivery of employment needs to be resolved before the development proposals can be supported.

Highways – greater certainty was required in relation to the potential outcome of highway modelling before further development proposals can be supported.

(B)   in respect of applications 3/14/0528/OP and 3/14/0531/OP, the Head of Planning and Building Control, Planning and Legal Services Officers be authorized to further engage with the appellants in relation to the matters detailed in the report now submitted, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and a minimum of one of the two local ward Members (whilst informing both ward Members at all stages of any relevant action or decision) and that, subject to that consultation, Officers be given delegated authority to formulate, alter, amend and update the Council’s statements and evidence (including appropriate legal agreement matters and conditions), to be submitted to the appeal inquiry in accordance with the relevant timescales.