Agenda item

Graham Bonner addressed the Committee in objection to the applications.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of applications 3/14/0528/OP and 3/14/0531/OP, the Committee endorse the view of the Vice–Chairman and local Ward Members, reached through their delegated consideration of these applications, that were the Council in a position to reach a determination on these proposals, it would have been minded to grantplanning permission subject to appropriate conditions and the conclusion of a Section 106 legal agreement.

The Director also recommended that, in respect of applications 3/14/0528/OP and 3/14/0531/OP, authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control and the Head of Democratic and Legal Services, 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), to determine any resubmitted applications, with the conditions and legal agreement requirements and timing to be in accordance with the information detailed in paragraphs 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 of the report now submitted.

Councillor S Bull, as the local ward Member, referred to the meeting that took place between himself, Councillor J Jones and Officers following the Development Management Committee meeting on 17 September 2014.  He explained that the meeting had been convened to discuss the Council’s case in respect of the forthcoming public inquiry regarding both planning applications and the discussions had centred on education and highways capacity and employment provision.

Councillor Bull stated that Councillor J Jones had referred to a number of other developments which he had considered had not been included in the assessment regarding education capacity.  He stated that both he and Councillor Jones were concerned that additional education capacity was not being considered early enough.

Councillor Bull referred to the likely oversubscription of schools in Buntingford in 2014/15.  He stated that Hertfordshire County Council had indicated that they would not be supporting the position of East Herts Council in not being supportive of both these planning applications.

In respect of highways capacity, Councillor Bull referred to the lack of objection from Hertfordshire Highways.  He referred to the Director’s explanation of the position of Hertfordshire Highways and of an external highways consultant.  Councillor Bull emphasised that Hertfordshire Highways would not be submitting any evidence to the public inquiry of behalf of East Herts Council.

Councillor Bull referred to an unidentified tipping point that had been highlighted by traffic modelling.  He stated that modelling had indicated a significant highways impact resulting from between 500 and 1500 additional dwellings or a maximum of 2000. Hertfordshire Highways had indicated however, that as yet unidentified measures could be taken to improve highways capacity.

Councillor Bull stated that the Wheatley Homes site did not deliver any additional employment provision.  An employment consultant had indicated that a number of steps could be taken in addition to direct provision.  An example was grant funding for additional broadband capacity or funding for improvements to the A10 single carriageway south of the town.

Councillor Bull stated that a range of scenarios had been considered and he set out the options that were available as regards the appeal.  He stated that the ability of the Authority to present a cogent case would be very difficult and the Council would not receive any support from Hertfordshire County Council as regards education or highways matters.

Councillor Bull referred to new information from the Hertfordshire Association for Parish and Town Councils (HAPTC) that suggested that there were now advantages to refusing the applications on the basis that there would be insufficient infrastructure in place prior to the commencement of the developments.  He therefore urged Members to indicate that they would have refused both applications.

Councillor J Jones, as the other local ward Member, stated that government guidance had been released on 6 October 2014, that tended to suggest that East Herts housing targets were excessive and had not taken into account residential care home provision and did not reflect Green Belt policy.  He commented that he believed there was a case that the Authority could demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land.

Councillor J Jones commented that his survey of local people indicated a significant local concern regarding education provision, health care provision, highway capacity and the lack of employment provision.  He concluded that the applications should come back before the Committee when all of these issues were resolved.

The Director referred to the decision of Members at the September meeting of the Committee.  He also referred to the meeting between Officers, the Vice–Chairman and the two local ward Members.  The conclusion was that the Authority would not be able to make a cogent case at the forthcoming public enquiry.

The Director stated that the assertion that the East Herts housing target was excessive would not appear to be based on a detailed consideration of the planning issues that the Council was dealing with and the housing needs of East Herts would be determined via the District Plan process.  The Director advised that Members should be significantly cautious in relation to this issue.  He confirmed that the 5 year supply would only be met exactly if the Council took the best case scenario that all sites were delivered on the basis of 660 units a year with a 5% buffer.

Members were advised however, that even then, the above scenario did not taken into account previous under delivery and a further 960 houses were required in East Herts.  The Director referred Members to the considerable amount of extra information in the additional representations summary.

Members were advised that Officers had met with Buntingford Town Council to set out the position of the Authority as regards the appeal.  The Director advised the Committee that it should be considering the management of development rather than seeking to resist it at all costs.  He referred to the language used by the Town Council that East Herts Council should fight this development as much as possible no matter how thin the evidence.

Members were reminded that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stipulated that the role of the Development Management Committee was to proactively address the development needs of the District and there was a risk that Members could put the Authority in a position where it was judged to be acting unreasonably.

Councillor P Ruffles referred to the infrastructure needs and queried whether the HAPTC comments related solely to education and highways matters or whether other matters such as water supply were factors that Members should take into account.  The Director confirmed that he had not seen the HAPTC comments so was unable to advise Members on this.

Councillor P Moore stated that, as before, she approved of the application in principle, but she was very concerned what would happen if the land for education could not be found in spite of the £10,000 available for land research.  She expressed concerns that the demand for school places was often higher than predicted and queried what would happen as regards funding should any identified land not be owned by the education authority.

Councillor G Jones emphasised that the meeting between the two ward Members, the Vice–Chairman and Officers seemed to have indicated that infrastructure matters may have been resolved satisfactorily.  He commented however, that the two ward Members did not appear to be comfortable in that regard.

Councillor G Jones concluded that little seemed to have changed since the September meeting of the Committee and, regardless of any undersupply of housing in East Herts, developments must be sustainable in terms of infrastructure provision.  Councillor N Symonds stated that she was not supportive of the applications on the basis of the importance of sustainable development.

Councillor M Alexander stated that he would like the Committee to see the minutes of the meeting between the local ward Members and Officers, as well as the minutes of any future meetings of this nature.  He also felt that developments must be sustainable and the 960 houses referred to by the Director did not all have to be in Buntingford.  He also commented on whether an Inspector would decide on these applications on the basis of the issues that were relevant when the appeal was lodged or on the basis of the information available on the date when the decision was actually made by that Inspector.

The Director advised that the infrastructure issues had been addressed by the solutions that were being put forward and which set out processes to ensure provision of infrastructure in support of housing development.  The Committee was advised that funding was available and work was taking place to ensure the necessary infrastructure provision and Members were perhaps being overcautious regarding this matter.

Councillor G Jones proposed and Councillor J Jones seconded a proposal that, in respect of applications 3/14/0528/OP and 3/14/0531/OP, were the Council in a position to reach a determination on these proposals, it would have been minded to refuse planning permission.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, in respect of applications 3/14/0528/OP and 3/14/0531/OP, authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control, in consultation with the Chairman of the Development Management 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), 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.

RESOLVED – that (A), in respect of applications 3/14/0528/OP and 3/14/0531/OP, were the Council in a position to reach a determination on these proposals, it would have been minded to refuse planning permission on the basis of the same matters detailed in the resolution of the 17 September 2014 meeting of the Committee; and

(B)   in respect of applications 3/14/0528/OP and 3/14/0531/OP, authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control, in consultation with the Chairman of the Development Management 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), 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.