Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Helen Scott addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Jeremy Gladwin spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/14/0817/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director referred Members to the Additional Representations Summary.  Members were advised that the distance separating the girls boarding accommodation was 12.5 metres, not 15 metres as stated in the report.  Members were also advised that, in respect of the length of the girls boarding accommodation, the total length of this building was 49 metres, and the 38 metres referred to in the report related only to the 3 storey element of the building.

Councillor G Jones, as the local ward Member, commented on the difficulties of viewing a site that could not yet be seen from the public highway.  He emphasised that many of the issues were affected by the fact that the site sloped south to north and also west to east.

Councillor G Jones further commented that there had been few significant changes from an earlier application yet Planning Officers and residents were now content with this latest scheme.  He referred to some photo montages sent by the objecting speaker which showed the before and after effects of the proposed development.

Councillor G Jones stated that 3 and 4 storey buildings on a site boundary was clearly going to have an impact and whilst some of the floors would be hidden, screening of the whole building would be impossible.  He acknowledged that although a lot of effort had gone into limiting the potential for overlooking, he was concerned regarding the overlooking of properties in Pye Gardens.

Councillor G Jones concluded that the assertion from the noise consultant that the overall noise impact of the proposed development would be either neutral or beneficial was not credible.  He stated that the application failed to satisfy the provisions of policies BH6 and more importantly ENV1 as the proposed development would not demonstrate compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of the size and massing of the buildings.

Councillor J Jones referred to the huge visual impact of the proposed development that would be significantly detrimental to the residents of Pye Gardens.

Councillor N Symonds acknowledged the quality of Bishop’s Stortford College as an education facility and an employer.  She stated however, that the proposed development was out of keeping with the surrounding area.  She stated that whilst 2 storey buildings would have been acceptable, 4 storeys would be too high.

Councillor Symonds concurred with all the points raised by Councillors G Jones and J Jones regarding overlooking of properties in Pye Gardens.  She expressed concerns in respect of the likely noise impact, in particular from the proposed play area between the two proposed boarding houses.

The Director reminded Members that Officers had considered all of the issues very carefully and this would be a difficult balancing decision given that this part of the site was relatively underdeveloped.  Officers had recommended approval and in so doing, had considered the distances between the buildings, the orientation of the windows and the existence of a landscaping belt that did screen the site to some extent.

The Director advised that Officers had carefully considered all of the issues relevant to the application and felt that, on balance, they should recommend approval.  The Committee was advised that if Members were minded to refuse permission, ENV1 was the most appropriate policy.  Members were reminded that the Conservation Officer had not objected to the application.

Councillor G Jones proposed and Councillor N Symonds seconded, a motion that application 3/14/0817/FP be refused on the grounds that the proposed development would not relate well to the massing and height of adjacent buildings and would result in a harmful, overbearing impact; loss of outlook and loss of privacy and was therefore contrary to policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

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 3/14/0817/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.        The proposed development, by reason of its scale, height and siting in close proximity to neighbouring residential properties, would not relate well to the massing and height of those adjacent buildings and would result in a harmful, overbearing impact; loss of outlook  and loss of privacy.  The proposal would thereby be contrary to policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Summary of Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2012 (as amended).  East Herts Council has considered, in a positive and proactive manner, whether the planning objections to this proposal could be satisfactorily resolved within the statutory period for determining the application. However, for the reasons set out in this decision notice, the proposal is not considered to achieve an acceptable and sustainable development in accordance with the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.