Agenda item

Recommended for Approval

At this point in the meeting (19:08), Councillor Watson (Chair) proposed, and Councillor Hill seconded, a motion for a 5-minute adjournment from 19:10 to 19:15, to allow Members time to read the late representations summary. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

The Chair said that there was an error in the report in that the application had been called in by Councillor Angus Parsad-Wyatt, and not by Councillor Eric Buckmaster as stated in the report.

The Chair reminded Members that they should not discuss the application during the 5-minute adjournment period.

RESOLVED – that the meeting be adjourned for 5 minutes from 19:10 to 19:15.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/23/2062/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

The planning case officer summarised the application and set out in detail the key issues for Members to consider. She said that her presentation would also cover listed building application 3/23/2185/LBC, and Members were reminded that the internal alterations requited listed building consent only and therefore formed no part of the considerations of the full application.

The planning case officer presented the committee with a series of elevation drawings and said that there had been no objection from Hertfordshire Highways. The planning case officer advised the committee of the main planning considerations and advised of the neutral impact on the listed building and the Sawbridgeworth conservation area.

Sarah Glover addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Councillor N Parsad-Wyatt addressed the committee on behalf of Sawbridgeworth Town Council.

Councillor A Parsad-Wyatt addressed the committee as an East Herts local ward Member. The Committee debated the application and asked questions of the planning officers and the Environmental Health Officer. The officers responded to the questions asked by the Committee.

The Legal Services Manager said that the impact of the proposed development in the context of the four licensing objectives was covered by the separate licensing regime. She detailed the four licensing objectives for Members.

The planning case officer advised that the proposed hours of operation were covered by a condition and were for a closure time of 11 pm on Sundays and midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. The Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications Team) said that the hours of operation could be further curtailed by the separate licensing regime in respect of the sale of alcohol or live music. He said that his advice was that this satisfactorily addressed the noise concerns.

Councillor Estop mentioned the possibility of a proposal to defer the application to secure more information in respect of the proposed operation so that was a better understanding of the planned activities on the site. The Legal Services Manager said that Members needed to be mindful of the statutory timescales for the council determining the application, and the risk of an appeal for non-determination of the application.

Councillor Watson proposed, and Councillor Hill seconded, a motion that an extra condition be applied in respect of the service delivery strategy to include details of the hours of operation which would seek to avoid a conflict with school opening and closing times.

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

At this point in the meeting (20:30), Councillor Watson proposed, and Councillor Hill seconded, a motion for a 5-minute adjournment from 20:30 to 20:35. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

The Chair reminded Members that they should not discuss the application during the 5-minute adjournment period.

RESOLVED – that the meeting be adjourned for 5 minutes from 20:30 to 20:35.

The meeting reconvened and Members continued to debate the application. They asked further questions of the officers.

Councillor Estop proposed, and Councillor Buckmaster seconded, a motion that application 3/23/2062/FUL be deferred so that there could more be information regarding the proposed uses of the site under licensing terms.

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

Councillor Watson proposed, and Councillor Hill seconded, a motion that application 3/23/2062/FUL be granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report, and subject to the extra condition previously approved by the Committee being applied in respect of the service delivery strategy to include details of the hours of operation which would seek to avoid a conflict with school opening and closing times.

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

RESOLVED – that application 3/23/2062/FUL be granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report, and subject to the extra condition previously approved by the Committee being applied in respect of the service delivery strategy to include details of the hours of operation which would seek to avoid a conflict with school opening and closing times.