Agenda item

Mr Rhodes, Mrs Hayward-Peel, Mrs Bailey,

Mr Piggott, Mr Hurford, Mr Peachey, Councillor McDonald and Mr Janke all addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Mr Stock and Mr Harris both spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/1012/OP, planning permission be refused for the reasons now detailed.

The Director drew Members’ attention to the late representations that had been circulated to the Committee in advance of the meeting.  He advised that this information included all representations received by 5 pm today and would be placed on the internet.

Councillor R Gilbert thanked Officers for the detailed reports.  He welcomed the approach of considering each application separately before they were determined by Members.  He referred to the failure of the Local Education Authority to meet a local need for school places and to maintain the standard of the existing school infrastructure.

Councillor Gilbert referred to the detailed reasons for refusal.  He stated that the noise and frequency of flights from Stansted Airport was a key issue.  He expressed concern that these were outline applications and Bishop’s Stortford was unable to absorb the extra dwellings that could be proposed by future reserved matters applications.

Councillor K A Barnes stated that the merits of the applications did not outweigh the issue of protecting the green belt.  He stressed that neither Leventhorpe School nor Hockerill Anglo European College supported the applications.  He also emphasised that the educational need did not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the greenbelt.

Councillor Barnes commented that the roads would be unable to cope with the increase in traffic.  He stated that a full transportation study was essential as the whole town would be affected by these applications.

Councillor A L Burlton stated that the Bishop’s Stortford High School and Herts and Essex High School did not need to move to new locations but it was clear that both establishments wanted to go ahead with the move.

Councillor Burlton expressed concerns that this application only related to half of the green belt location at Whittington Way.  He stressed that further applications could come forward for the rest of the site should this application be approved.

He stated that surrounding roads could not be widened and traffic and transport around the town was a major issue that would become significantly worse should these applications be refused.

Councillor Mrs M H Goldspink stated that these proposals were the most significant this Committee had had to determine.  She acknowledged the concerns in relation to education provision in Bishop’s Stortford.  She stressed however, that the Committee must determine these proposals on planning policies and nothing else.

Councillor Goldspink stated that this application was clearly against green belt policy and Members must consider whether the educational need had been clearly demonstrated in terms of whether there was any justification for departing from policy.

Councillor Goldspink commented on whether the schools had demonstrated the very special circumstances for why the scheme was acceptable.  She detailed the questions she felt must be considered by the Committee in terms of whether there was any justification for departing from policy.  She stated that she remained unconvinced that the schools had answered these questions.

Councillor R N Copping stressed that it had not been demonstrated that this site was the most suitable for a new school.  He stated that this was a finely balanced judgement but the schools had not demonstrated that there was sufficient justification for departing from policy.

The Director stressed that the costs of delivering a school was not an issue that Members should give significant weight to.  He advised however that deliverability, which included a financial element, was an issue that Members could consider.

The Director stressed that Members had to judge whether the application complied with national and local green belt policies.  He also advised that there was a judgement to be made on whether the application satisfied key planning tests on green belt policy giving weight as Members felt appropriate to educational need.  He stated that there must be clear very special circumstances which outweighed harm for the proposals for schools in the green belt to proceed.   

Councillor A L Burlton commented on whether the Committee should include a reason for refusal in respect of highways concerns.  A number of Members expressed concern that highways concerns should be highlighted now so that the issue could be referred to in respect of reserved matters applications.

Councillor R I Taylor stressed that some of the roads in Hertfordshire and Essex had recently been identified as some of the most congested in this part of the country.

The Director advised that Hertfordshire Highways utilised agreed traffic models when commenting on applications of this nature.  He advised caution in that the Committee was considering the advice of highways experts.  He referred to the availability of traffic management solutions for severely congested roads.

Members were advised that the Committee must be specific as to which roads they were concerned about if there was to be a reason for refusal around highways issues.  Councillor Burlton stated that even with a traffic management solution, he could not see how the local roads in Bishop’s Stortford could cope with these applications.

Following a lengthy discussion around the roads that would be most affected by this application, the Director suggested a form of words for a highways reason for refusal.

Councillor R Gilbert proposed, and Councillor K A Barnes seconded, a motion that the Committee accept the Officers’ recommendation for refusal subject to an additional reason for refusal to reflect Members’ concerns relating to traffic congestion.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/10/1012/OP be refused planning permission for the reasons now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/1012/OP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.            The proposed development involves the provision of two schools located within the Green Belt which represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The extensive scale and amount of development would result in the site becoming dominated by buildings and extensive areas of hard surfacing. This impact would be emphasised by the extensive nature of the proposed changes in site levels and the limited opportunities for landscaping in between buildings, outdoor recreation areas and along the southern boundary. If permitted the proposal would be detrimental to the openness of this part of the Green Belt and the wider landscape setting of the town. Other harm is associated with the development which relates to the impact of traffic movements and general activity within the site, the impact on landscape features and rights of way. Whilst there is accepted to be an educational need for additional school places within the Bishop’s Stortford Educational Area, this issue is not considered to outweigh the inappropriateness of the development and harm to the openness of the Green Belt or the other harm. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy GBC1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV11, GBC14 and LRC9 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts.

2.            The Council is not satisfied, on the basis of the submitted information, that the impact of aircraft noise nuisance has been properly considered, in terms of the impact on internal teaching spaces. The Council is not therefore in a position to determine whether an acceptable educational environment would be created by the proposed development. If permitted the proposals would be contrary to Policy ENV25 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and guidance in PPG24.

3.            The proposed development will result in a significant alteration to traffic movements within the town.  Despite the package of measures proposed by the applicant the Council is of the view that the development will result in unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, in particular at the Whittington Way/Thorley Street/London Road junction and other junctions northwards along London Road between the site and the town centre.  Therefore the proposal would have a harmful impact upon the free flow of traffic and would also be contrary to Policy TR1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.