Agenda item

Recommended for Refusal.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/14/1283/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted. 

The Director advised that reason for refusal 2 should be amended to include reference to policy EDE2 in addition to GBC9.  The Chairman commented that she was aware from her discussion with Officers that although they were of the view that the workshop was worthy of retention, they were not satisfied that the proposed dwelling was a suitable alternative development. 

Councillor S Bull, as the local ward Member, commented that it was a shame that Officers had recommended refusal.  He stated that this building had been derelict for many years and the proposed dwelling would sit well within the site and would enhance the village.

Councillor J Jones agreed with Councillor Bull as the proposed development would improve the street scene in Hare Street and he was minded to vote against the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.  The Director advised that a key test was whether the building was worthy of retention and Officers did not believe this to be the case.

The Director reminded Members that the site was located in the rural area beyond the Green Belt and the application was contrary to policy GBC9 in respect of the reuse of redundant rural buildings.  Members were advised that, in respect of policy GBC9, alternative leisure and tourism type uses had to be explored by way of evidence of a market exercise.  The same applied to policy EDE2 as regards employment use.

Councillor P Moore sought clarification as to whether this would be classed as infill development.  The Director stated that the proposed development could not be classed as infill as Hare Street was not a category 1 or 2 village and this was the rural area beyond the Green Belt were there was an in principle objection to residential development.

Councillor M Newman commented that applying the letter of planning policies did not make sense under the specific conditions of this situation.  He stated that contrary to the view of Officers, in practice, this was infill development and the existing building might not meet build regulations.

Councillor Newman stated that he was minded to support the application as replacing a derelict building with housing would improve the overall street scene of Hare Street.  Councillor D Andrews referred to a degree of sympathy for this application from the Committee and he agreed with the points of Councillor Newman.  .

Councillor J Jones proposed and Councillor M Alexander a motion that application 3/14/1283/FP be approved.

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 3/14/1283/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.        The year time limit (1T121)

2.        Approved plans (2E103)

3.        An intrusive “phase 2” site investigation shall be undertaken to fully and effectively characterize the nature and extent of any land or groundwater contamination and its implications.  The findings of the phase 2 site investigation including any necessary decontamination shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that adequate protection of human health, the environment and water courses is maintained in accordance with policy ENV20

of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework .

4.        Samples of materials (2E12)

5.        Construction hours of working (6N07)

6.        Boundary walls and fences (2E07)

7.        Hard surfacing (3V21)

Directives:

1.        Other legislation (0L01)

2.        Street naming and numbering (19SN)

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 material considerations in this case, is that permission should be granted.