Agenda item

Jane Orsborn addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/0512/OP, planning permission be refused for the reasons now detailed.

Councillor J J Taylor stressed that this application was once again before the Committee as inappropriate development in the green belt.  She referred to the planning history of the application and stated that should this application be approved, a very dangerous precedent would be set.

Councillor J J Taylor referred to the comments of the Broxbourne Woods Society that this application, if approved, would result in a creeping urbanisation of the countryside.  She reminded Members that this site was within the metropolitan green belt where planning permission for new buildings would not be approved except in very special circumstances.  She stated that there were no apparent special circumstances in this case so this application was contrary to policies GBC1 and GBC14 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Councillor R Gilbert commented that there was no hope of the derelict buildings being reused on this site.  He referred to the case officer’s point that this application was an improvement on the previous applications.

Councillor Gilbert referred to the 19 letters of support that had been received.  He also referred to the continuous efforts by the applicant to make this scheme acceptable to Officers.

Councillor Gilbert stressed that the existing buildings were derelict and this application was essentially to demolish structures that were a blot on the landscape.  He stated that this small development was not contrary to policy GBC14 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Councillor K A Barnes stated that the concerns of Officers were contrary to the views of the Parish Council and 19 local residents.  He referred to the continued views of the National Farmers Union in support of the application.

Councillor Barnes referred to the likely improvements to what was a brownfield site.  The application would reduce the roof height of buildings on the site and return 50% of the site to the green belt following implementation of landscaping works.  He stressed that some of the visual aspects of the existing buildings would also be retained.

Councillor Barnes stated that refusing the application could leave the Authority open to accusations that it was acting unfairly and inconsistently with resolutions on planning applications in this area.  Councillor S A Bull expressed concerns that, although he had sympathy with the applicant, approving this application could open the floodgates for inappropriate green belt development. 

Councillor J Demonti stated that this site was not pristine green belt, but a mix of dangerous and derelict buildings.  She commented that special circumstances existed for approving the application, which sought to demolish the above buildings and return 70% of the site to the green belt.

Councillor M R Alexander stated that the Officer who wrote the report had recommended refusal due to the policy presumption against new development in the greenbelt.  He stated however, that the report contained numerous caveats suggesting the Officer was unsure whether to recommend refusal but had to do so due to the planning policies.

Councillor Alexander referred to the likely planning gain resulting from this application.  He stated that the Officer had acknowledged the improvements to this scheme when compared to previously refused applications on the site.

The Director reminded Members of the planning history and stated that this site was within the green belt and the policies around the green belt were widely known.  Members were also reminded of the policy presumption against development unless there were very special circumstances.  The Director stated that Officers had not been satisfied that such special circumstances had been put forward by the applicant.

In response to a number of queries from Members on the way forward if this outline application was approved, the Director advised that Officers would not necessarily be constitutionally required to report it back to Committee but Members and the Chairman could request that it come back to Members.

Councillor J J Taylor proposed and Councillor R N Copping seconded, a motion that the Committee accept the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

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

Councillor R Gilbert proposed and Councillor Mrs M H Goldspink seconded, a motion that application 3/10/0512/OP be approved on the grounds that the application conserves, enhances and creates a landscape that enhances the character and appearance of a brownfield site to the benefit of the green belt and was not contrary to policies GBC1 and GBC14 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007, subject to conditions and/or legal agreement, the details of which to be formulated by Officers and agreed in consultation with Councillors W Ashley and M R Alexander.

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 that application 3/10/0512/OP be refused planning permission for the reasons now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/0512/OP, planning permission be granted subject to conditions and/or legal agreement, the details of which to be formulated by Officers and agreed in consultation with Councillors W Ashley and M R Alexander.