Agenda item

Recommended for Refusal.

Steve Baker addressed the Committee against the application.  Neil Osborn spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1657/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director advised that Officers felt that the 8^th reason for refusal could be deleted as sufficient information had now been received to address the impacts of the application on bats and dormice.  Members were also advised that the wording of the 1^st refusal reason had been amended as detailed in the additional representations schedule.

Councillor S Bull, as a local ward Member, commented that this application site was 1 of 8 under consideration for development in Buntingford.  He stated that this application should not be approved unless it had been demonstrated via consultation or technical studies that this site was necessary for development or was preferable to the other 7 sites.

Councillor S Bull emphasised that the studies and evaluation of the other sites had not been completed and any applications for similar development in Buntingford should not be approved until all these studies had been completed.

Councillor S Bull commented that the applicant had referred to East Herts Council’s inability to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing as a valid reason why this application should be approved.

Councillor S Bull referred to a number of policies that this application contravened, namely GBC3 as the application site was outside the settled area of Buntingford.  He also referred to policies ENV1, SD1, TR1 and TR7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Councillor S Bull stated that any sites for development must complement other sites and there must be a balanced approach to development to achieve the best possible outcomes for Buntingford.  He emphasised that the lack of bus routes to where this site was located and the dangerous prospect of residents using the nearby footpaths made this application unsustainable.

Councillor S Bull emphasised that the Environment Agency concerns regarding a nearby pond and the flood risk to existing properties had not been addressed and the lack of public transport would mean a heavy reliance on the private car.  He referred to the possible conflict between on–street parking and access for emergency vehicles.

Councillor S Bull stressed that the transport assessment was flawed as this related to towns with a regular train service and access to employment opportunities.  He reminded Members that Buntingford had no such provision and it was a flawed approach to make comparisons with towns that did.

Councillor S Bull concluded that this application had not been properly assessed in relation to the District Plan.  He stated that no sites in the rural area beyond the Green Belt should be approved in the vicinity of Buntingford until the District Plan process had been completed.

Councillor S Basra, as the other local ward Member, agreed with all the points put forward by Councillor S Bull.  He stated that the application should be refused.  The Director advised that the points raised by Members were points well made.  He commented however, that sustainability was not advanced as a reason Officers had listed in the refusal reasons.  This was because, whilst the wider sustainability considerations might suggest that Buntingford was not a suitable location for development, the potential for development to make the town more sustainable remained a matter that should be given weight.

The Director also advised that whilst Officers were of the view that the Council’s current Local Plan was compatible with the NPPF in most respects, there were issues for East Herts to address in terms of land supply.  Members were advised that whilst the issue of land supply had been given weight in this matter, Officers had considered that this did not outweigh other concerns in respect of this application.

Councillor Mrs R Cheswright supported the comments of Councillors S Bull and S Basra.  She stated that this application was an appalling development on the wrong site and in the wrong location.  She commented that the application would not just affect Buntingford but all of the surrounding villages as well.

Councillor M Newman stated that all of the reasons why this application should be refused clearly outweighed any reason why the application could be supported.  Councillor G Jones commented on the appalling standard of the application and he was surprised it had not been withdrawn by the applicant prior to this meeting.

Councillor S Bull proposed and Councillor A Burlton seconded, a motion that the Committee support the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.  At the request of Councillor M Alexander, the unanimous nature of the vote was noted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/1657/FP, planning permission be refused for the following amended reasons:

1.           The site lies in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt as defined in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review, April 2007, where development will only be allowed for certain specific purposes.  The proposals do not represent an acceptable form of development in that respect and are, therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of policies GBC2 and GBC3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.  Prior to the publication of the East Herts District Plan, Part 1: Strategy, development at this time would prejudice the assessment process currently underway which will lead to the identification of land and the preferred strategy for residential and other development across the district.  The proposals are therefore contrary to the objectives set out in that respect in the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.           There is insufficient justification for the proposed cemetery which amounts to inappropriate development in the Rural Area, and in combination with the proposed allotments will appear visually intrusive and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape contrary to policies GBC2, GBC3 and GBC14 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

3.           The proposed development will generate additional trips on an already congested local highway network, and in the absence of an agreement on the scope and details of the mitigation measures required, the proposal will be contrary to policy TR20 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

4.           The proposed development fails to achieve a high standard of layout and design to respond to the context of the site and surrounding area, or to reflect local distinctiveness. The development would therefore be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area contrary to policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

5.           The proposed development would result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy to residents of 11 Hare Street Road, and between plots 13 and 14, 25 and 26, 90 and 91, and 150 and 151 contrary to policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

6.           The proposed development fails to make adequate provision for children’s play facilities on site contrary to policy LRC3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Supplementary Planning Document 2009.

7.           Insufficient information has been submitted to enable the Local Planning Authority to determine the impact of the proposed cemetery access on protected trees. The proposal is thereby contrary to policies ENV2 and ENV11 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Summary of Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012, 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.