Agenda item

3/23/0775/FUL - Change of use of land to residential curtilage and erection of a 1.8 metre height fence (set in by 1.5 metre) and with managed peripheral landscaping at Land to the Rear Of 74, 75 And 76 Magnaville Road, Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire, CM23 4DW

Recommended for Refusal


The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/23/0775/FUL, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report.


The Planning Case Officer presented the application to the Committee and summarised in detail the main issues for Members to consider. He referred to the planning history and the context of the application and set out the main planning policy considerations for Members to consider.


Valda Edmunds addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Hollebon addressed the Committee as the local ward Member. Councillor Devonshire said that significant weight was behind the fact that the ward councillor and Bishop’s Stortford Town Council were in favour of the application.


Councillor Copley asked for some clarity as to whether there was any way for the application to be approved without it setting a precedent. She asked if there was any element of the application that could be changed which would make officers feel that the scheme could be approved.


The Planning Officers said that were Members to approve the application, the grant of the planning permission would become a material consideration for future applications in the immediate area and the wider Thorley Park estate. He said that amendments to the application had been considered and policy HOU12 was of significant relevance to this application in terms of retaining these areas. Members were advised that landscaping scheme conditions would not overcome the harm that result from this planning application being approved.


The Team Leader (Strategic Applications) said that the scheme that was before Members was being considered and Officers had not identified any changes or conditions that could overcome their concerns and there were no changes that could be made to support a grant of planning permission. He mentioned shortcomings in terms of the lack of arboriculture surveys and compliance with the development plan and in particular policy HOU12.


The Chairman set out some matters relating to the distinctive characteristics of the area, and in particular the footpaths and very short roads. She also commented on the wider context of the application and referred to the significant weight of relevant policy connections.


Councillor Smith expressed a concern that this area was not being maintained. She said that the ownership did not seem to be in dispute and asked if there was anything that could be done to ensure it was better maintained. She said that she was not confident that fencing it off would prevent dog fouling on the periphery of the proposed fencing.


Following some comments from Members, the Legal Services Manager reminded the Committee that planning decisions had to be made in the context of how development plan policies were material to an application for planning permission. She said that decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless there were material planning considerations that indicated otherwise. Members were reminded that there were policy justifications for refusing the application and the Committee should bear that in mind and think about material planning considerations to overturn that recommendation.


Councillor Bull said that he understood the precedent that could be set, and each application was judged on its merits. He said that the application was outstanding, and he would support a grant of planning permission.


The Legal Services Manager said that Members must consider the planning merits and the planning principles which had been set out by the officer had set out in the report quite well.


Councillor Watson proposed and Councillor Buckmaster seconded, a motion that application 3/23/0775/FUL be refused for the reasons detailed in the report. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.


RESOLVED that in respect of application 3/23/0775/FUL, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report.

Supporting documents: