Public Document Pack

Jeff Hughes Head of Democratic and Legal Support Services

MEETING : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE VENUE : COUNCIL CHAMBER, WALLFIELDS, HERTFORD DATE : WEDNESDAY 29 FEBRUARY 2012 TIME : 7.00 PM

PLEASE NOTE TIME AND VENUE

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:

Councillor W Ashley (Chairman). Councillors M Alexander, S Bull, A Burlton, Mrs R Cheswright, J Demonti, G Jones, G Lawrence, M Newman, S Rutland-Barsby (Vice-Chairman), J Taylor and B Wrangles.

Substitutes:

Conservative Group: Councillors D Andrews, E Bedford and T Page. Liberal Democrat Group: Independent Group: Councillor E Buckmaster.

(Note: Substitution arrangements must be notified by the absent Member to Democratic Services 24 hours before the meeting).

CONTACT OFFICER: PETER MANNINGS 01279 502174

This agenda has been printed using 100% recycled paper

PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS

1. A Member with a personal interest in any business of the Council who attends a meeting of the Authority at which the business is considered must, with certain specified exemptions (see section 5 below), disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest prior to the commencement of it being considered or when the interest becomes apparent.

2. Members should decide whether or not they have a personal interest in any matter under discussion at a meeting. If a Member decides they have a personal interest then they must also consider whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

3. A personal interest is either an interest, as prescribed, that you must register under relevant regulations or it is an interest that is not registrable but where the well-being or financial position of you, members of your family, or people with whom you have a close association, is likely to be affected by the business of the Council more than it would affect the majority of inhabitants of the ward(s) affected by the decision.

4. Members with personal interests, having declared the nature of that personal interest, can remain in the meeting, speak and vote on the matter unless the personal interest is also a prejudicial interest.

5. An exemption to declaring a personal interest applies when the interest arises solely from a Member’s membership of or position of general control or management on:

• any other body to which they have been appointed or nominated by the authority • any other body exercising functions of a public nature (e.g. another local authority)

In these exceptional cases, provided a Member does not have a prejudicial interest, they only need to declare their interest if they speak. If a Member does not want to speak to the meeting, they may still vote on the matter without making a declaration.

6. A personal interest will also be a prejudicial interest in a matter if all of the following conditions are met:

• the matter does not fall within one of the exempt categories of decisions • the matter affects your financial interests or relates to a licensing or regulatory matter • a member of the public, who knows the relevant facts, would reasonably think your personal interest is so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest.

7. Exempt categories of decisions are:

• setting council tax • any ceremonial honour given to Members • an allowance, payment or indemnity for Members • statutory sick pay • school meals or school transport and travelling expenses: if you are a parent or guardian of a child in full-time education or you are a parent governor, unless it relates particularly to the school your child attends • housing; if you hold a tenancy or lease with the Council, as long as the matter does not relate to your particular tenancy or lease.

8. If you have a prejudicial interest in a matter being discussed at a meeting, you must declare that interest and its nature as soon as the interest becomes apparent to you.

9. If you have declared a personal and prejudicial interest, you must leave the room, unless members of the public are allowed to make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter, by statutory right or otherwise. If that is the case, you can also attend the meeting for that purpose. However, you must immediately leave the room once you have finished or when the meeting decides that you have finished (if that is earlier). You cannot remain in the public gallery to observe proceedings.

AGENDA:

1. Apologies

To receive apologies for absence.

2. Chairman's Announcements

3. Declarations of Interest

4. Minutes

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 1 February 2012 (Previously circulated as part of the Council Minute book for 22 February 2012).

5. Planning Applications and Unauthorised Development for Consideration by the Committee (Pages 9 - 12).

(A) 3/11/1616/FP - Erection of 14 no. dwellings and new veterinary surgery with associated landscaping and access roads and demolition of existing house at 306-310, Ware Road, Hertford, SG13 7ER for Tudorwood Ltd (Pages 13 - 30).

Recommended for Approval.

(B) 3/11/1927/FP - Erection of 16 dwellings and creation of access at land south of 10 Acorn Street, Hunsdon for Croudace Homes Ltd (Pages 31 - 50).

Recommended for Approval.

(C) 3/11/1818/FP - Erection of stock proof post and rail fencing, post and barbed wire fencing , scalpings to entrance and dropped kerb, (retrospective) at land adjacent to Lower Hatfield Road, Hertford SG13 8XX for Mr George Smith (Pages 51 - 66).

Recommended for Refusal.

(D) 3/11/2050/FP - Continued use of land to allow market stalls to be positioned in the centre of North Street on Thursdays and Saturdays at North Street, Bishops Stortford for East Herts District Council (Pages 67 - 76).

Recommended for Approval.

(E) 3/11/2216/FO - Variation of condition 6 of LPA ref 3/11/0544/FP which states "The use of the temporary car park as shown on plan: 4156/05 shall cease upon the completion of the approved works to the car parks and the temporary surfacing shall be removed and the land reinstated within 1 month of that date" to allow the temporary car park to be used until end of April 2012 at Land adjacent to the River Stort (East side - Grange Paddocks to Castle Gardens), Bishop's Stortford for East Herts Council (Pages 77 - 84).

Recommended for Approval.

(F) 3/11/1641/FP - Erection of 2 no Market Houses and 1 No live/work unit (amended scheme) at 279 - 280 Hertingfordbury Road, Hertingfordbury, SG14 2LQ for Mrs Shepherd (Pages 85 - 96).

Recommended for Approval.

(G) 3/11/1932/FP - Construction of a replacement barn with alteration to the vehicle access to the barn yard at The Gage, Bucks Alley, Little Berkhamsted Hertford SG13 8LR for Mr David Carr (Pages 97 - 104).

Recommended for Approval.

(H) 3/11/2156/FP - Erection of scout hut and associated external works at Rear of 14 - 21 Kecksy's, Sawbridgeworth for 1st Sawbridgeworth Scout Group (Pages 105 - 114).

Recommended for Refusal.

(I) 3/11/2110/FP - Conversion of garage with the addition of a first floor to create annexe with a single storey link to main dwelling and car port to side of garage conversion at Oakleighs, 1 Crossroads, Epping Green, Hertford, Hertfordshire, SG13 8NG for Mr and Mrs R and S Perry (Pages 115 - 122).

Recommended for Approval.

(J) 3/11/2185/FP - Conversion of car port to form residential annexe including raising of roof to create first floor accommodation at Bromley House, Bromley Lane, Wellpond Green, SG11 1NW for Mr and Mrs Thompson (Pages 123 - 130).

Recommended for Approval.

(K) 3/11/2006/FP - Rear Extension and Raised Roof with Front and Rear Dormers at High Hedges, The Street, Haultwick SG11 1JQ for Mr John Doran (Pages 131 - 138).

Recommended for Approval.

(L) 3/11/1849/FP - Change of Use from Office to Dog Grooming Parlour (Sui Generis) with new front entrance door and the provision of an Air Conditioning Unit at 30-34 Parliament Square, Hertford, Herts SG14 1EZ for Mr Leo Cunningham (Pages 139 - 148).

Recommended for Approval.

(M) E/11/0274/B - Unauthorised erection of a second floor rear extension above the rear wing of the property at 8 Trinity Road, Ware, SG12 7DB (Pages 149 - 154).

Enforcement.

(N) E/11/0246/A - Unauthorised advertisements displayed on a Grade II listed building without listed building and advertisement consent at 39 Hockerill Street, Bishops Stortford, CM23 2DH (Pages 155 - 160).

Enforcement.

(O) E/12/0046/A - Proposed development of a pedestrian footbridge and ramps over the railway track, with temporary compound and access, at Johnson's Crossing at Land off Grange Paddock, Rye Street, Bishops Stortford, CM23 2HD (Pages 161 - 166).

Enforcement.

(P) 3/11/2048/FP - Proposed young peoples housing scheme consisting of 14 2 bed bedsit flats and associated staff and training facilities plus parking and garden areas on a site currently used as a Council car park at Baker Street, Hertford for Aldwyck Housing Group - 'To Follow'

6. Update On Enforcement Statistics And Authorised Action (Pages 167 - 184).

Enforcement Update.

7. Confirmation Of East Hertfordshire District Council Tree Preservation Order (No. 2) 2011 P/TPO 558 'Christ Church Vicarage, 15 Hanbury Close, Ware, Herts (Pages 185 - 190).

Tree Preservation Order.

8. Confirmation Of East Hertfordshire District Council Tree Preservation Order(No. 8) 2011 P/TTPO 564' Woodland To The South Of Rectory Farm, Meesden Herts (Pages 191 - 198).

Tree Preservation Order.

9. Items for Reporting and Noting - 'To Follow'

(A) Appeals against refusal of Planning Permission/ non-determination.

(B) Planning Appeals Lodged.

(D) Planning Statistics.

10. Urgent Business

To consider such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration and is not likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information.

Agenda Item 5 EAST HERTS COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 29 FEBRUARY 2012

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

5. PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND UNAUTHORISED DEVELOPMENT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMITTEE

WARD(S) AFFECTED: As identified separately for each application and unauthorised development matter.

Purpose/Summary of Report

• To enable planning and related applications and unauthorised development matters to be considered and determined by the Committee, as appropriate, or as set out for each agenda item.

RECOMMENDATION FOR DECISION:

(A) A recommendation is set out separately for each application and unauthorised development matter.

1.0 Display of Plans

1.1 Plans for consideration at this meeting will be displayed outside the Council Chamber from 5.00 pm on the day of the meeting. An Officer will be present from 6.30 pm to advise on plans if required. A selection of plans will be displayed electronically at the meeting. Members are reminded that those displayed do not constitute the full range of plans submitted for each matter and they should ensure they inspect those displayed outside the room prior to the meeting.

2.0 Implications/Consultations

2.1 Information on any corporate issues and consultation associated with this report can be found within Essential Reference Paper ‘A’.

Background Papers The papers which comprise each application/ unauthorised development file. In addition, the East of England Plan, Hertfordshire County Council’s Minerals and Waste documents, the East Hertfordshire Local Plan and, where appropriate, the saved policies from the Hertfordshire

Page 9 County Structure Plan, comprise background papers where the provisions of the Development Plan are material planning issues.

Contact Officers: Kevin Steptoe – Head of Planning and Building Control, Extn: 1407. Alison Young – Development Control Manager, Extn: 1553.

Page 10 ESSENTIAL REFERENCE PAPER ‘A’ AGENDA ITEM 5

Contribution to Promoting prosperity and well-being; providing the Council’s access and opportunities Corporate Enhance the quality of life, health and wellbeing of Priorities/ individuals, families and communities, particularly those Objectives who are vulnerable.

Caring about what’s built and where Care for and improve our natural and built environment.

Shaping now, shaping the future Safeguard and enhance our unique mix of rural and urban communities, ensuring sustainable, economic and social opportunities including the continuation of effective development control and other measures.

Leading the way, working together Deliver responsible community leadership that engages with our partners and the public. Consultation: As set out separately in relation to each matter. Legal: As set out separately in relation to each matter if any are appropriate. Financial: As set out separately in relation to each matter if any are appropriate. Human As set out separately in relation to each matter if any are Resource: appropriate. Risk As set out separately in relation to each matter if any are Management: appropriate.

Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 12 Agenda Item 5a 5a 3/11/1616/FP – Erection of 14 no. dwellings and new veterinary surgery with associated landscaping and access roads and demolition of existing house at 306-310, Ware Road, Hertford, SG13 7ER for Tudorwood Ltd

Date of Receipt: 13.09.2011 Type: Full – Major

Parish: HERTFORD

Ward: HERTFORD – KINGSMEAD

RECOMMENDATION:

That subject to the applicant entering into a legal obligation pursuant to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to cover the following matters:

• The provision of two affordable homes • 15% of dwellings to be constructed to Lifetime Homes standards • Primary Education £32,590 • Secondary Education £34,404 • Nursery Education £4,457 • Childcare £1,819 • Youth £660 • Libraries £2,687 • Sustainable transport £24,500 • Open Space £20,974 • Recycling £1,008 • Monitoring fee - £300 per clause of the agreement • All payments index linked in accordance with the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD

The Director of Neighbourhood Services be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1. Three Year Time Limit (1T121)

2. Approved plans (1T102) - 601 Revision C, 602 Revision D, 603 Revision A, 604 Revision B, 605 Revision B, 606 Revision B and 607 Revision B.

3. Details of materials (1T213)

4. Contaminated land survey (2E333)

5. Landscape design proposals (4P124) (Matters to be agreed – Fencing and any other means of enclosure including the acoustic fencing indicated on drawing ref: 601C, proposed and existing functional services above and below ground e.g. drainage, planting plans, written Page 13 3/11/1616/FP

specifications including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment, schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate and implementation timetables)

6. Landscape Works Implementation (4P13)

7. Details of a scheme of external lighting proposed in connection with the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development, and no external lighting shall be provided without such written consent. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: in the interests of the security of the occupiers of the site, and the protection of the known bat habitat on site in accordance with policies ENV3 and ENV16 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

8. Before first occupation of the approved development, all access and junction arrangements serving the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To secure a satisfactory access appropriate to the development, in the interest of public safety and convenience.

9. No part of the development shall be occupied until the visibility splays shown on the approved drawings have been provided on both sides of the access and the area contained within the splays shall thereafter be kept free of any obstruction.

Reason: To provide adequate inter-visibility between the access and the existing public highway for the safety and convenience of users of the highway and of the access

10. Notwithstanding the detail shown on the submitted plan the width of the footways adjacent to the new access road shall be a minimum of 1.8m between the junction with Ware Road and the proposed pedestrian crossing feature on the access road, and shall be retained as such.

Reason: To ensure appropriate access to the veterinary surgery for pedestrians.

11. Provision and retention of parking spaces (3V234) Page 14 3/11/1616/FP

12. Before the new access is first brought into use, any existing access within the frontage of the land to be developed, not incorporated in the access hereby approved, shall be closed in accordance with details to be previously submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of road safety and to reduce the number of points at which traffic will enter and leave the public highway.

13. If, during construction works, the proposed road is not constructed to the full length and layout illustrated on the approved plan, a temporary turning space for vehicles shall be constructed within the site in a position to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building taking access from the road is occupied.

Reason: To avoid the need for vehicles to reverse into or from the public highway in the interest of road safety.

14. Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development provision of facilities for cycle storage shall be made in accordance with details submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The facilities shall thereafter be retained as approved.

Reason: To promote alternative modes of transport.

15. Wheel washing facilities (3V252)

16. No development shall take place until a scheme for the implementation of energy efficiency measures within the development to secure at least 10% of the energy supply of the development from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved scheme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the development assists in reducing climate change emissions in accordance with policy ENG1 of the East of England Plan May 2008 and policy SD1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Page 15 3/11/1616/FP

Directives:

1. With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777.

2. The site is located within the groundwater protection zone of Musley Lane pumping station. The construction works and operation of the proposed development should be done in accordance with the relevant British Standards and Best Management Practices, thereby significantly reducing the ground water pollution risk. It should be noted that the construction works may exacerbate any existing pollution. If any pollution is found at the site then the appropriate monitoring and remediation methods will need to be undertaken. For further information please refer to CIRIA Publication C532 'Control of water pollution from construction- guidance for consultants and contractors'

3. The development will involve the numbering of properties and naming of new streets. The applicant MUST consult the Director of Internal Services. Application for this purpose should be made to the Local Land and Property Gazetteer Custodian, East Herts Council, The Causeway, Bishop’s Stortford, CM23 2EN. Tel: 01279 655 261.

4. In accordance with advice from Hertfordshire Constabulary you are requested to have regard to the 'Secured By Design' standards. You are advised to liaise with Mark Montgomery, Crime Prevention Design Advisor, on 01707 355 227.

5. The applicant is advised that in order to comply with this permission it will be necessary for the developer of the site to enter into an agreement with Hertfordshire County Council as Highway Authority under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the satisfactory completion of the access and associated road improvements. The applicant is advised to contact the Eastern Herts Highways Area Office, Hertford House, Meadway Corporate Centre, Rutherford Close, Stevenage SG1 3HL (Telephone 01438 757880) to obtain the requirements on the procedure Page 16 3/11/1616/FP

to enter into the necessary agreement with the highway authority prior to commencement of development.

6. The applicant is advised that the storage of materials associated with this development should take place within the site and not extend into the public highway without authorisation from the highway authority, Hertfordshire County Council. If necessary further details can be obtained from the Eastern Herts Highways Area Office, Hertford House, Meadway Corporate Centre, Rutherford Close, Stevenage SG1 3HL (Telephone 01438 757800).

7. The applicant is advised that the Hertfordshire County Council, as highway authority, will not consider the proposed on-site vehicular areas for adoption as highway maintainable at public expense.

8. The applicant is encouraged to have regard to measures of sustainable development such as the harvesting of grey water, and the provision of a sustainable drainage system.

9. Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted, a survey should be carried out to identify the presence of any asbestos on the site, either bonded with cement or unbonded. If asbestos cement is found it should be dismantled carefully, using water to dampen down, and removed from site. If unbonded cement is found the Health and Safety Executive at AW House, 6-8 Stuart Street, Luton, Beds, LU1 2SJ shall be contacted and the asbestos shall be removed by a licensed contractor.

Summary of Reasons for Decision

The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (East of England Plan May 2008, Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the saved policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular policies ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV14, ENV16, ENV20, ENV21, ENV23, ENV24, HSG1, HSG3, HSG4, HSG6, SD1, SD3, TR2, TR7 and EDE2 and national Planning Policy Statements 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development, 3 – Housing, 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, 23 – Planning and Pollution Control and planning Policy Guidance 13 - Transport. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies and the other material considerations relevant in this case is that permission should be granted.

(161611FP.MC)

Page 17 3/11/1616/FP

1.0 Background:

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract. It comprises a mostly vacant plot of land with a bungalow in the north-west corner. It is located towards the eastern edge of Hertford and lies approximately midway between the main shopping centres of Hertford and Ware, with Hertford town centre approximately one mile to the south-west, and Amwell End in Ware just under a mile to the north-east.

1.2 The proposal is for the construction of 14 dwelling houses and a veterinary surgery, along with the associated landscaping, access roads and parking. The 14 houses would comprise 7 terraced dwellings along the Ware Road frontage, and 4 semi-detached and 3 detached houses towards the rear of the site.

1.3 The site was formerly used as a car showroom, garage, industrial unit and petrol station (nos. 308 – 310 Ware Road) with a separate bungalow (no. 306). It has subsequently been cleared, although the bungalow has been retained. It is proposed to demolish this bungalow as part of the proposed development.

1.4 Alternative uses of the site were sought in the mid/late 1990s in line with the established uses, but these applications were not successful. Subsequently, the commercial uses ceased approximately four years ago.

1.5 A subsequent application for a commercial use of the site (ref: 3/10/0088/FP) was made approximately two years ago. It sought consent for a veterinary surgery and four commercial units. Permission was refused by Members for the application in June 2010 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development due to the dependency on access by the private car, the relative remoteness of the site to significant residential areas and the potential undermining of strategies to support existing town centres does not represent an inclusive and sustainable form of development. The development is thereby contrary to Policies SD1 and STC6 of the East Herts Local Plan and national guidance in PPS1, PPG13 and Policy EC10.2 of PPS4

2. Inadequate information has been submitted to satisfy the requirements for a sequential assessment as required by policy EC14.3 of Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Growth. In the absence of this information the Council cannot conclude whether the town centre uses are appropriate for this out- Page 18 3/11/1616/FP

of-centre location.

3. Inadequate information has been submitted to satisfy the requirements for an impact assessment as required by policy EC16 of Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Growth. In the absence of this information, the Council cannot accurately assess whether the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the vitality and viability of the Ware and Hertford town centres.

4. Insufficient information has been submitted to allow a complete and accurate assessment of the impact proposed development on the local highway network in accordance with policies TR2 and TR3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

5. The proposed buildings would be out of character with the surrounding area, and of a size, form and appearance which fail to reflect or support local distinctiveness. The design fails to take the opportunity to improve the character and quality of the area or the way it functions contrary to policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007, para 34 of PPS1 and EC10.2c of Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Growth.

6. The design and layout of the car park at the rear of the proposed buildings is poor lacking natural surveillance and creates a potential location for anti-social behaviour. This would be contrary to policies ENV1 and ENV3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

7. No provision has been made for contributions towards sustainable transport or associated infrastructure improvements as may be required to mitigate against the impact of the development. It would therefore be contrary to Policies IMPI and TR1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

8. The development involves the loss of an existing bungalow without any replacement provision of residential accommodation as part of the development, contrary to policy EDE3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

2.0 Site History:

2.1 There have been several applications relating to this site. Those considered relevant to this application are as follows:

Page 19 3/11/1616/FP

• 3/95/0246/FP – Demolition of bungalow, new showroom, sales offices and flat; Extensions to parking; Removal of forecourt canopy and petrol pumps – Refused September 1995.

• 3/95/1815/FP – Resubmission of 95/00246 – Withdrawn by applicant.

• 3/97/0024/FP – New car showroom – Withdrawn by applicant.

• 3/10/0088/FP – Redevelopment of site to provide 5no. commercial units (use Classes A1 Retail, A2 Financial and Professional Services, A3 Restaurant, Cafe etc, A4 Public House, Wine Bar etc, A5 Hot Food Takeaway and D1 Non-residential Institution e.g. medical, educational, veterinary etc. with associated car parking for 68no. cars, cycle store and ancillary services – Refused June 2010.

3.0 Consultation Responses:

3.1 Thames Water have stated that they have no objections to the proposal on the grounds of sewerage infrastructure. They have noted that it is the developer’s responsibility to make arrangements for the disposal of surface water build up.

3.2 Environmental Health have commented that the conditions suggested in relation to the previous application at the site (ref: 3/10/0088/FP) also be applied to this development.

3.3 Veolia Water have noted that the site lies within the Source Protection Zone of Musley Lane pumping station. Construction works and the operation of the development should be carried out in accordance with the relevant British Standards and Best Management practices, including the monitoring and remediation of any discovered pollution.

3.4 Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre have noted the presence of bats along the cliff face to the rear/south of the site. Protective measures are recommended to prevent harm to this habitat.

3.5 The Council’s Property Services Section has endorsed the potential provision of grey/rain water harvesting systems, and the use of a sustainable urban drainage system.

3.6 The County Council’s Historic Environment Unit has commented that the proposal is unlikely to have an impact upon significant heritage assets.

Page 20 3/11/1616/FP

3.7 The Crime Prevention Officer has made various recommendations relating to security at the site, including the provision of security lighting, closed circuit television cameras, the meeting of Secured by Design standards, and improvements to natural surveillance. The applicant has provided amended plans to directly address the concerns relating to natural surveillance, while the other matters can be controlled by conditions on the permission.

3.8 The Crime Prevention Officer has also suggested a meeting with the applicant and veterinary practise manager to discuss matters of internal security at the surgery. This suggestion has been passed to the applicant for their consideration.

3.9 The County Council’s Planning Obligations Officer has requested contributions totalling £66,043 towards nursery, primary and secondary education, childcare, youth facilities and libraries in the local area.

3.10 The County Council’s Highways officer has requested a contribution of £24,500 towards sustainable transport measures in the vicinity of the site, based on a provision of 49 parking spaces.

3.11 The Highways officer has also recommended a series of conditions to be placed on the permission relating to the provision of the vehicular access, internal road layout, parking, details of construction vehicle movements and access arrangements, cycle storage and the cleaning of mud from the wheels of construction vehicles.

3.12 The Landscape officer has confirmed that the proposed landscaping scheme would be acceptable in principle. He has recommended that precise details of landscaping be provided prior to landscaping work beginning on site.

3.13 The Housing section have confirmed that a contribution towards the District’s affordable housing needs would be expected from the development, given the size of the site.

4.0 Town Council Representations:

4.1 Hertford Town Council ‘applauded the application in terms of layout and design’, and ‘was further pleased to note the concept for introducing energy saving conditions’. It recommended that these measures be required by a condition on the permission.

4.2 The Council ‘expressed concern that the ambiance and appearance of the veterinary surgery was not conducive to the rest of the site’. Page 21 3/11/1616/FP

5.0 Other Representations:

5.1 The application has been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.

5.2 One letter has been received from a neighbouring resident noting a discrepancy in the plans and expressing concern regarding the proximity of the nearest house to their property (no. 304c Ware Road). Amended plans have since been received correcting the error.

6.0 Policy:

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping ENV3 Planning Out Crime – New Development ENV14 Local Sites ENV16 Protected Species ENV20 Groundwater Protection ENV21 Surface Water Drainage ENV23 Light Pollution and Floodlighting ENV24 Noise Generating Development HSG1 Assessment of site not allocated in this Plan HSG3 Affordable Housing HSG4 Affordable Housing Criteria HSG6 Lifetime Homes SD1 Making Development More Sustainable SD3 Renewable Energy TR2 Access to New Developments TR7 Car Parking – Standards EDE2 Employment Uses outside Employment Areas

6.2 Officers have also had regard to the Council’s Affordable Housing and Lifetime Homes Supplementary Planning Document.

6.3 In addition, the following National policy guidance is relevant:

Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control

Page 22 3/11/1616/FP

7.0 Considerations:

7.1 The main planning issues for consideration in the determination of this application are as follows:

• Principle of development

• Whether the development makes an appropriate provision for affordable housing

• Impact on the Ware Road streetscene

• Impact on neighbour amenities

• Other matters

Principle of development

7.2 The site lies within the built-up area and therefore, in principle, development is acceptable. The proposed development involves the erection of fourteen houses and a veterinary surgery. The site is presently vacant, with the previous commercial buildings on site demolished and the site cleared.

7.3 The site sits between residential properties to the west, and commercial properties to the east. The development has been the subject of extensive pre-application discussions between the applicant and officers. It is considered that a mixed-use development of the site is appropriate, with the proposed commercial element linking with the existing commercial properties to the east, and the houses linking to the houses to the west.

Affordable housing

7.4 The site is approximately 0.65ha in area, and therefore above the threshold beyond which the Council will seek affordable housing, in accordance with Local Plan policy HSG3 and national PPS3 – Housing. At the maximum of 40% affordable housing, the Council would expect 6 of the 14 proposed houses to be affordable. Even though the development involves the demolition of an existing house, calculations are based on the proposed number of new dwellings.

7.5 The applicant has commissioned a report, prepared by Savills, to indicate that a requirement to provide affordable housing at the site Page 23 3/11/1616/FP

would significantly limit the profitability of the development. They have argued that the provision of even a single unit of affordable housing at the site would make the development unprofitable.

7.6 An independent review of the calculations has been sought in order to assess the viability of the scheme. The report, prepared by the District Valuation Office (DVS) concluded that a fully policy-compliant scheme would be financially unviable. Officers therefore do not recommend that a full provision of 40% affordable housing be sought.

7.7 The report instead suggested that a provision of 14%, or two units, would result in a viable scheme. As an alternative, a commuted sum in the region of £185,000 to be paid in lieu of providing affordable units has also been suggested.

7.8 Following discussions between Officers, the Housing section, and the applicant, the applicant has indicated a willingness to pay the commuted sum. However, officers consider that this would not be acceptable.

7.9 The site is considered to be suitable for the provision of affordable housing. It is located in close proximity to Ware and Hertford, with access via public transport to both town centres. Local housing is predominantly in private ownership, and therefore there would not be an over- concentration of affordable housing in the area. The site is therefore considered by officers to be appropriate for the provision of affordable housing, in line with the requirements of national PPS3.

7.10 Following consultation with the Council’s Housing section, it is noted that commuted sums are only rarely considered to be acceptable. No alternative sites have been identified where the money could be spent on providing affordable housing, and no justification has been put forward to state why affordable housing cannot be provided on this site. Officers therefore consider that there is no reason why affordable housing should not be provided on this site.

7.11 Officers therefore recommend that the Section 106 agreement include a requirement that two of the fourteen residential units proposed be made available for affordable housing.

Street Scene

7.12 The Ware Road street scene comprises a mix of residential and commercial units, with the application site forming a break between significant stretches of residential properties to the west (approximately 400m), and commercial Page 24 3/11/1616/FP

properties to the east (around 140m). It is therefore considered appropriate that there be a clear visual separation between the veterinary surgery to the east of the frontage, and the houses to the west of the frontage.

7.13 The houses would be of a comparable height to the neighbouring houses (304, 304a-c Ware Road). The ground level of the application site would be significantly lower than that of the neighbouring properties, so while the individual houses would be taller on the application site, the ridgelines would be lower than the adjacent houses.

7.14 There would be a gap of more than two metres from the flank wall of the westernmost house to the flank wall of no 304c, the nearest house to the site. This is in keeping with the Council’s design guidance. 304c has been extended at ground and first floor level, and it is unlikely that any further increase in size to the property would be sought. The separation between the properties would therefore be likely to be maintained. The difference in styles between the existing and proposed properties, and the difference in levels, would further ensure against there being a significant terracing effect.

7.15 The proposed houses include interesting architectural details such as asymmetric canopies and prominent, steeply pitched front gables. In addition, four of the seven houses would include ground floor bay windows and front balconies. Although not typical features in the Ware Road street scene, balconies are present on some properties and officers consider that they would add character to the properties.

7.16 The veterinary surgery would be an angular, flat-roofed building. It would be largely functional in form. However, the frontage would be broken up with a projecting aluminium façade to the west, and a vertical metal rain screen that would separate the timber-clad office area from the brick exterior surgery area. In addition, the office area would project forward of the surgery area by around 3m, and would be slightly taller than the wider surgery area. The building would be set back from the site boundary by around 10m, with some landscaping along the frontage. Overall, it is considered that the building would possess some visual distinctiveness, while not appearing significantly out of keeping with the neighbouring commercial properties.

7.17 The site is in a prominent location on Ware Road, on a stretch of largely straight road of more than a mile in length. Any development on this site will be highly visible in the local area. Local Plan policy ENV1, and national PPS1, require a high standard of design for new development, and that development accord with the local character. Officers consider Page 25 3/11/1616/FP

that the appearance of this development would be acceptable on this site, and that the design of the surgery and houses would be acceptable in relation to the local area, as well as being sufficiently distinctive to contribute to local character.

Neighbour amenities

7.18 The site has been levelled, with the proposed ground level approximately 1m above the adjacent pavement level on Ware Road. The site is bordered to the west by Cockbush Avenue, a sharply sloping road that is some 15m above the ground level of the site at a point around 70m from Ware Road. The houses to the rear of the site would be approximately 10-15m lower than the houses that back onto the site, and there would be no material impact on the privacy of the existing occupiers from the development.

7.19 Officers consider that the difference in levels would be sufficient to mitigate against significant noise disturbance to existing residents. The commercial element of the development would be sited away from existing houses, with acoustic fencing sited between the surgery and the proposed houses, as well as between the commercial site to the east and the proposed houses to the rear of this site.

7.20 The houses to the front of the site would be aligned with the existing neighbouring houses (304, 304a-c Ware Road), be of comparable depths and set slightly lower into the ground. There would be no material loss of light from the erection of the proposed houses to the existing properties.

7.21 The houses opposite the site, on the north side of Ware Road, are at or close to the level of the road. The houses and surgery would not be so tall that they would materially affect light to these properties.

7.22 Officers consider that the development would have no impact on neighbour amenities that would warrant the refusal of the application, in accordance with Local Plan policy ENV1.

Other Matters

7.23 The houses to the rear of the site would share design characteristics with the more prominent properties fronting Ware Road, including steep, asymmetric gables and front balconies to the semi-detached houses. This would ensure a consistent appearance to the houses across the development.

Page 26 3/11/1616/FP

7.24 The County Council has requested approximately £90,000 in contributions towards transport and education matters. The District Council is seeking approximately £25,000 towards recycling, open space and the costs of preparing the legal agreement. The applicant has proposed a lower contribution of £80,000 overall, but at the time of writing this report officers consider that this lower offer has not been justified and is not sufficient to properly mitigate the impact of the development on local infrastructure.

7.25 Parking provision at the site would be 31 spaces for the 14 houses, and 18 spaces for the surgery. These figures have been based on the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for parking at new developments, and are considered to be acceptable by officers.

7.26 The cliff to the south of the site is known to be the site of foraging by bats. No external lighting would be permitted to shine onto the cliff of the immediate area around it, to ensure that this habitat is not disturbed by the development. However, there is a need to provide some external lighting at the site for security purposes, particularly in the rear parking area for the surgery. Details of this lighting would be required by condition.

7.27 With regard to the Crime Prevention Officer’s recommendation that the development meet Secured by Design standards, it is not considered reasonable to require this by condition given the relatively small scale of the development. However, a directive is added to the recommendation to make the applicant aware of the standards.

7.28 In accordance with Local Plan policy HSG3 it is recommended that a condition be placed on the permission requiring that a minimum of two of the dwellings be constructed in accordance with the Lifetime Homes standards. This will ensure that these homes be fully accessible, with their internal space designed for possible future adaptation as the needs of the occupants allow.

7.29 In terms of encouraging sustainable development, the development offers potential for measures such as the provision of a sustainable urban drainage system and communal grey water harvesting and the applicant is encouraged to include such measures in the development. A condition is also suggested to ensure a minimum provision in accordance with regional planning policy.

8.0 Conclusion:

8.1 The site is a vacant piece of previously developed land that occupies a Page 27 3/11/1616/FP

prominent location on Ware Road.

8.2 The site is considered by officers to be suitable for the proposed mixed use redevelopment. The buildings would be compatible with, and complimentary to, existing local character and the development would not be harmful to neighbour amenities.

8.3 The application has been submitted following extensive negotiations between the applicant and the Council, and is considered to be an appropriate mixed use compatible with the site, its previous employment use and the wider character of the area.

8.4 It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted for this development, subject to the conditions outlined above and the signing of the Section 106 agreement.

Page 28 3 9 95 3 3 a

3 39

5 38

1 38

6 1 to 1

3 6 4

61 HH 3 sss HH DD gggsss OOAA aaaggg R ROO NN EEE RR RREEE WAWA Garage

35 1 312

1 35

1 34

5 33

7 33 4

1 33 Warehouse

5 a

c 0

4 a

3 0 4

2 2 1 CCC CCC OOO OOO CCC CCC KKK 8 KKK BBB BBB UUU 3 7 UUU 2 2 SSS SSS

HHH

HHH 3

1 0 7 UUEEE 1

AAVVVEEENNUUEEE

1 5

8 2 1

0 4

b 55 SITE

a 15

55 26

0 2

13 5 7 EE 7

5 53 9 5 5 5

9 2

6 4

This copy has been produced specifically for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528

East Herts Council Address: 306-310, Ware Road, Hertford, Herts, SG13 7ER Wallfields Reference: 3/11/1616/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:1250 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL3413SE Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 8 November 2011 Page 29 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 30 Agenda Item 5b 5b 3/11/1927/FP – Erection of 16 dwellings and creation of access at land south of 10 Acorn Street, Hunsdon for Croudace Homes Ltd

Date of Receipt: 16.11.2011 Type: Full – Major

Parish: HUNSDON

Ward: HUNSDON

RECOMMENDATION

That, subject to the applicant entering into a S106 agreement requiring the following matters:

• The provision of six affordable dwellings comprising of 4no. 2 bed units and 2no. 3 bed units; • A financial contribution of £38,210 towards secondary education, £2,484 towards childcare, £722 towards youth and £2,776 towards libraries; • A financial contribution of £28,000 towards the provision for traffic calming and safety enhancement measures and to promote sustainable transport measures; • A financial contribution of £5,100 towards Parks and Public Gardens, £13,250 towards Outdoor Sports Facilities and £2,295 towards Children and Young People; • 15% of the dwellings shall be constructed to ‘Lifetime Homes’ standard • The provision of fire hydrants.

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Three Year Time Limit (1T121)

2. Levels (2E051)

3. Samples of materials (2E123)

4. Obscured glazing (2E183)(insert:- flank elevation of plot 13)

5. Refuse disposal facilities (2E243)

6. No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for:

Page 31 3/11/1927/FP

• Methods for accessing the site; • The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; • Loading and unloading of plant and materials; • Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; • The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; • Wheel washing facilities; • Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; • A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works. Reason: To ensure that the construction works and associated activity are acceptable in terms of amenity of the area and highway safety.

7. Construction hours of working - plant and machinery (6N053)

8. No development shall take place until a scheme for the implementation of energy efficiency measures within the development to secure at least 10% of the energy supply of the development from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved scheme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

9. No development shall take place until the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

Page 32 3/11/1927/FP

• A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: all previous uses; potential contaminants associated with those uses; a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors; potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

• A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

• The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

• A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of groundwater protection, in accordance with policy ENV20 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control.

10. Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. If piling is found to be necessary the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Page 33 3/11/1927/FP

11. All existing trees, hedges and hedgerows shall be retained, unless shown on the approved drawings as being removed. All trees, hedges and hedgerows on and immediately adjoining the site shall be protected from damage as a result of works on the site, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with relevant British Standards, for the duration of the works on site and until at least five years following contractual practical completion of the approved development. In the event that trees, hedges or hedgerows become damaged or otherwise defective during such period, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented. In the event that any tree, hedge or hedgerow dies or is removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority, it shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, by not later than the end of the first available planting season, with trees of such size, species and in such number and positions as may be agreed with the Authority.

Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing trees, in accordance with policies ENV2 and ENV11 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

12. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, no development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include a) means of enclosure; b) hard surfacing materials; c) planting plans; d) schedules of plants noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities and e) a timetable for implementation.

Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscape design, in accordance with policy ENV2 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

13. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved pursuant to Condition 12. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the local planning authority. Any trees or plants that, within a period of 5 years after planting are removed, die or become damaged or defective shall be replaced with others of the same species, size and number as originally approved unless the local planning authority has given written consent to any variation. Page 34 3/11/1927/FP

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscaping in accordance with the approved designs, in accordance with policy ENV2 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

14. Retention of parking spaces (3V204)

15. Vehicular use of garages (5U10)

16. The development hereby permitted, shall not be occupied until such time as traffic calming measures in the vicinity of the access to the site have been implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with details that shall have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety.

17. Approved plans (2E102)

Directives:

1. Other Legislation (01OL)

2. Planning Obligation (08PO)

3. Street Naming and Numbering (19SN)

4. Highways Works (05FC2)

5. Groundwater protection zone (28GP1)(insert Hadham Mill)

Summary of Reasons for Decision

The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (East of England Plan May 2008, Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the 'saved' policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular saved policies SD2, HSG3, HSG4, HSG6, GBC3, TR1, TR2, TR7, TR8, TR14, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV9, ENV11, ENV20, LRC9, OSV1, OSV4 ad IMP1. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies and the grant of outline planning permission within LPA reference 3/08/0569/OP is that permission should be granted.

(192711FP.MP)

Page 35 3/11/1927/FP

1.0 Background:

1.1 The application site is located on the southern edge of the village of Hunsdon. The site forms an area of some 0.4 Ha, with an irregular shape, narrower at the entrance with the road frontage, increasing in width within the site. The site appears generally as ‘scrubland’ with some mature shrubs, significant hedging on the southern boundary, a mature tree to the frontage of the site and other mature trees bounding properties to the north within Wicklands Road. A public footpath dissects the site running from the road across the site to the east into open agricultural fields. The application site is shown on the attached OS extracts.

1.2 The application seeks consent for 16 dwellings, 6 of those being affordable. The application proposes 4no. 4 bed dwellings, 8no 3 bed detached dwellings and 4no 2 bed dwellings. A total of 36 parking spaces are proposed, with also garages proposed for some of the dwellings. The proposed access to the site is at the western boundary of the site with Acorn Street. Pedestrian footways are proposed along the frontage of the site with Acorn Street, and would extend into the development in the northern part of the site.

1.3 The site is covered with rough scrub, with some mature trees contained within the site and substantial hedging to the eastern and southern boundaries. The application is accompanied by a Tree Survey and Report which assesses the condition of the trees and the impact of the development on the existing landscaping. The survey identified that there are a variety of trees within the site, sycamores, hawthorns, Norway maple, elder and a fruit tree, with the most significant tree being the ash tree at the front of the where it bounds Acorn Street. Some of the other trees within the site are proposed to be removed.

2.0 Site History:

2.1 The site has been the subject of the following applications:-

• Planning permission was granted within LPA reference E/1653-49 for the use of a hut for temporary builders storage; • Planning permission was refused within LPA reference E/702-73 for the erection of five detached dwellings; • Planning permission has most recently been granted outline planning permission within LPA reference 3/08/0569/OP for the erection of 16 dwellings.

Page 36 3/11/1927/FP

3.0 Consultation Responses:

3.1 Veolia Water comments that the site is located within the groundwater protection zone of Hadham Mill pumping station. This is a public water supply and the construction works associated with the development should be carried out in accordance with the relevant British Standard and Best Management Practices.

3.2 The Environment Agency comment that the development proposal will only be acceptable if planning conditions are attached with any grant of planning permission. Those conditions include matters relating to decontamination of the site, no drainage or infiltration of surface water into the ground and no piling or other foundation designs using penetrative methods.

3.3 The Councils Housing Development Officer comments that the application includes the provision of six affordable houses which is in accordance with the New Homes Affordable Housing Brief. The affordable units consist of 4no 2bed and 2no 3 bed houses which is acceptable (plots 7-12). There should be a tenure split of 75% rental and 25% shared ownership.

3.4 Thames Water comment that they do not have any objections to the planning application. They set out that surface water drainage is the responsibility of the developer and it is recommended that storm water flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage.

3.5 Hertfordshire County Council Spatial and Land Use Planning Minerals and Waste team comment that the County Council seek to promote sustainable management of waste in the County which includes re-use of unavoidable waste where possible and the use of recycled materials where appropriate to the construction. Policies 3, 7 and 8 of the Hertfordshire County Council Waste Local plan 1999 are relevant. A site waste management plan is required for the development proposal which aims to reduce the amount of waste on site and where that waste is taken to.

3.6 The Ramblers Association comment that Public Footpath 20 runs through the site and diversion of that footpath must be carried out by appropriate legal procedures. The footpath should be at least 2metres in width.

3.7 The County Councils Development Services team comment that as the application is for 16 residential dwellings it falls above the current Page 37 3/11/1927/FP

threshold where financial contributions are sought to minimise the impact on Hertfordshire County Council Services for the local community. The following contributions are sought:-

• Secondary Education - £38,210; • Childcare - £2,484; • Youth - £722; • Libraries - £2,776.

3.8 The Councils Engineers comment that the site is located entirely within flood zone 1. There are no flood incidents recorded for the site and the site is shown as situated away from surface water inundation zones. The development does result in an increase in the amount of impermeable areas with subsequent risk of flooding to the highway and residencies. The Design and Access statement makes reference to sustainable drainage systems and comments that the existing sewerage system is sufficient for connection of this development site. It is recommended that the development make use of above ground SUDSs (Sustainable Drainage Systems), including, retention/detention ponds, swales as these will provide amenity value whilst providing flood protection. It is not recommended that the development make use of below SUDs as this would not necessarily give any enhancements to amenity value and are more problematic to operate. Green roofs and harvesting water butts could be utilised.

3.9 The Conservation Officer comments that the layout is of concern, in that the dwelling located behind no. 10 to the north of the site does not address the street. This is considered to result in an uncharacteristic introduction to the village which, in conjunction with the gable end of plot 7, which terminates the views of the development, is uncharacteristic of the wider setting. The Conservation Officer recognises that the site is constrained by an existing footpath but that this would not necessarily restrict the re-orientation of plots 13-15 and the arrangement of plot 7.

3.10 The Landscape Officer recommends approval of the application. The Officer comments that tree protection measures are required in accordance with BS 5837:2005 to safeguard the health and viability of the ‘off site’ trees abutting the northern boundary and the ash tree at the front of the site. The application does not include hard or soft landscape details although the overall site plan and arrangement of dwellings, gardens, roads and footpaths is acceptable. The proposed layout shows an existing hedge to be retained along the eastern boundary although this appears to have been removed. The northern boundary of the central car park abuts the boundary fence leaving no space for soft Page 38 3/11/1927/FP

landscape provision which results in a potentially bland appearance for this central space which is only mitigated by the presence of the existing off-site apple tree in the rear garden of the adjoining property.

3.11 Hertfordshire County Highways comment that they do not wish to restrict the grant of planning permission. The Highways Officer comments that, given the 2008 approval of planning permission for residential development, the principle of this development proposal is acceptable. The Highways Officer comments that it is disappointing that the application does not include details of traffic calming measures which were previously identified in the 2008 approval. The Highways Officer considers that funding for traffic calming is likely to be in the region of £10,000, and they recommend that this be required through a legal agreement. In addition, and in accordance with the Planning Obligation SPD a further accessibility contribution of £18,000 is required which could be used to fund further speed reduction measures to assist with improving pedestrian accessibility between the site and the village centre.

County Highways comment that the Highway Authority is not prepared to consider adopting the estate road as a public highway. However, the scheme has largely been prepared in accordance with the HCC design guide ‘Road in Herts and the Manual for Streets. The estate layout allows for penetration by refuse collection, service and emergency vehicles and an appropriate level of parking provision is provided.

4.0 Parish Council Representations:

4.1 Hunsdon Parish Council makes the following comments:

• The Parish Council is concerned about the lack of safe pedestrian access into the village centre and consider that there should be a footpath linking the development site with the village along Acorn Street. Where this is not possible due to land ownership issues, the Parish would wish to see the provision of traffic calming to slow vehicle speed entering the village; • The Parish Council are intending to erect a bus shelter in Acorn Street near the Crown Public House and would welcome any funding through the Sustainable Transport Contribution; • The Parish Council would welcome financial support for the Village Hall, Football pitches and the Children’s Play area which all form part of the Parish Councils ownership; • The Parish Council consider that financial contributions should be directed towards the Primary School which is near capacity; Page 39 3/11/1927/FP

• The Parish Council is concerned with the impact of the development in terms of construction and construction workers vehicles and the impact on local roads; • The Parish Council consider that, in respect of affordable housing provision, a greater proportion or all of the affordable units should be intermediate housing, not social housing. The Parish Council consider that the standard split of affordable housing (75% social rented and 25% shared ownership), to be based on the 2004 Housing Needs Survey and, since that date there has been an increase in house prices which means that it is difficult for first time buyers to purchase properties. The provision of shared ownership properties would assist in meeting market demands. In addition, the Parish consider that they have a disproportionate number of social rented housing (88) which is higher on average over the district. A greater level of shared ownership would assist in rebalancing the demographic in the village.

5.0 Other Representations:

5.1 The applications have been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.

5.2 Two letters of representation have been received which can be summarised as follows:

• Plot 13 will result in a loss of amenity to no 4 Wicklands Road, in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy; • The existing main sewer is insufficient to deal with the additional capacity of the development site.

6.0 Policy:

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

• SD2 – Settlement Hierarchy • GBC3 – Appropriate Development in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt • HSG2 – Phased Release of Housing Land • HSG3 – Affordable Housing • HSG4 – Affordable Housing Criteria • HSG6 – Lifetime Homes • TR2 – Access to New Developments • TR7 – Car Parking – Standards Page 40 3/11/1927/FP

• TR8 – Car Parking – Accessibility Contributions • ENV1 – Design and Environmental Quality • ENV2 – Landscaping • ENV3 – Planning Out Crime – New Development • ENV9 – Withdrawal of Domestic Permitted Development Rights • ENV11 – Protection of Existing Hedgerows and Trees • ENV20 – Groundwater Protection • LRC9 – Public Rights of Way • OSV1 – Category 1 Villages • OSV4 – Housing Allocations – Category 1 Villages • IMP1 – Planning Conditions and Obligations

7.0 Considerations:

7.1 The planning considerations relevant to this application include:- • The principle of development; • The acceptability of the proposed layout and design; • Highway safety matters and parking; • The impact on neighbour amenity; • The impact on landscape features and public right of way and; • Affordable housing and financial contributions.

The principle of development 7.2 The proposal comprises a Local Plan Housing Land allocation site (policy OSV4 of the Local Plan) and the principle of residential development is therefore acceptable and has been accepted through the previous grant of outline planning permission. This is a Phase one development site which, as identified in policy HSG2, means that there is no restriction on the release of the land for development.

Appropriateness of the chosen layout and design 7.3 Within the previously approved planning application, LPA reference 3/08/0569/OP, matters of layout and scale where considered to be acceptable. The development now proposed is very similar to that previously approved, in terms of layout and scale, which is a material consideration of significant weight. The layout of the development has been influenced by the existing public footpath which dissects the site in an east to west axis. The access road follows the same line as the footpath, which creates a ‘linear’ form of development, with dwellings fronting the access road and footpath, and the creation of a smaller enclosure of dwellings fronting onto a parking area further within the development serving plots 11-15. Page 41 3/11/1927/FP

7.4 Concern is raised by the Conservation Officer in respect of the relationship of plots 7 and 15 which are side onto the street scene. However, the layout proposed is considered to be broadly in keeping with the pattern and form of development within the immediate and wider locality. To the immediate north of the site is the housing estate of Wicklands Road. That estate also benefits from a linear form of development with houses fronting onto the access road. To the immediate west of the application site are the listed buildings of the Old Rectory and Francis Chapel which are striking and interesting buildings from the road frontage and which benefit from generous amenity space. Further to the north is the historic core of the village which lies within the Conservation Area.

7.5 The proposed layout does differ from LPA reference 3/08/0569/OP, in terms of the provision of detached garages - plots 1-6 and 16 now benefit from single garages. Those garages are generally of modest proportions which appear to assimilate well with the chosen design for the dwellings and provide a separation between dwellings. The garages do however result in a slightly reduced level of garden amenity for those dwellings. However, the resultant amenity space for those properties with garages and the other dwellings is considered to be acceptable in this case.

7.6 In Officer’s view, having regard to the layout and scale of development previously approved within LPA reference 3/08/0569/OP, the proposed development is considered to offer an appropriate pattern of development which reflects the structure and layout of the surroundings.

7.7 The proposed design of the buildings varies across the site with the provision of detached, semi-detached and terraced buildings. The design of buildings within the village varies, from the more contemporary buildings of Wicklands Road to the varied and historic core of the village where the evolution and growth of the built form is evident through the differing forms, design and articulation of buildings. The proposed development includes various elements and design features from the surroundings with the provision of a row of traditional terrace dwellings, gable and hip roofs. The overall form, massing and arrangement of dwellings together with the mixed palette of materials including brick, boarding and render are considered to create a design of building that would appear in keeping with the character and appearance of the surroundings and respect the local distinctiveness of Hunsdon.

7.8 To ensure that the palette of materials is of high quality and is appropriate to the surroundings, it is necessary and reasonable to require samples of materials through a planning condition. Page 42 3/11/1927/FP

Highway safety matters and parking

7.9 Within the previously approved outline planning application, LPA reference 3/08/0569/OP, the proposed access and internal road layout was considered to be acceptable. Within the legal agreement relating to that previous approval there was a requirement for the applicant to pay a contribution towards the provision for traffic calming and safety enhancement measures and to promote sustainable transport measures. The Highways Officer has reviewed the proposals in this application and sets out that traffic calming measures are required. As the exact form of such features are yet to be determined, the Highways Officers recommends that the matter be dealt with through the provision of a financial contribution of £10,000, which would be used to finance traffic calming measures. In addition, and in accordance with the Planning Obligations SPD, there is also a requirement for a financial contribution of £500 per vehicular space towards sustainable transport measures which equates to a further contribution of £18,000. The Highways Officer sets out that a proportion of that contribution could be further used to assist with speed reduction measures to assist with improving pedestrian access between the development site and the village.

7.10 The comments from the Parish Council set out that there should be a pedestrian footway linking the development with the existing footway and the village beyond. There is a pedestrian footway on the eastern side of Acorn Street but this terminates at number 8/9 Acorn Street and does not extend all the way to the application site. The provision of a pedestrian footway linking the application site to that existing footway is not therefore possible as this land falls outside the ownership of the applicant. This highlights the importance of securing financial contributions which, as indicated above, could be used to assist with improving pedestrian access between the development and the village.

7.11 In accordance with those considerations and, having regard to the requirements of the Planning Obligations SPD and the HCC Planning Obligations Toolkit the financial contributions recommended by the Highways Officer are considered to meet the tests set out in S122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL) 2010. To ensure that the traffic calming measures are implemented, Officers recommend the inclusion of a planning condition, requiring that the traffic calming measures be implemented prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings. Such a condition is considered to be necessary and reasonable in the interests of pedestrian and highway safety.

Page 43 3/11/1927/FP

7.12 In accordance with Policy TR7 and TR13 of the Local Plan Second Review, appropriate car and cycle parking provision should be made. The maximum standards are set out in Appendix II of the Local Plan and the Council’s Vehicle Parking in New Developments Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The proposed development allows for the provision of 36 parking spaces which equates to 2 approximately spaces per dwelling. The level of parking is in accordance with the maximum standard of 36 spaces, as required by policy TR7 of the Local Plan. The level of parking is therefore considered to be acceptable. To ensure that the spaces proposed for parking are retained as such and in the interests of highway safety, it is considered to be necessary and reasonable to implement a planning condition restricting the spaces for vehicular parking and garaging.

Neighbour amenity

7.13 The main planning considerations in relation to neighbour amenity impact involve properties, 2-8 Wicklands Road and No 10 Acorn Street. As set out above, the proposed layout is very similar to that previously granted planning permission at outline stage. Properties 2-8 Wicklands Road benefit from a rear garden space of 16-18 metres in length up to the boundary of the application site. Plots 12 and 13 are nearest to the boundary with those properties – they are set side onto the boundary with a further distance of 1.8-2.6metres to the boundary. No window openings are proposed on the flank elevation of plot 12 which fronts onto the rear gardens of No 6-8 Wicklands. A landing window is proposed on the flank elevation of plot 13. Officers are mindful of the relationship of that window with the neighbouring properties – 2-6 Wicklands Road, and it is considered to be necessary and reasonable to require that window to be obscure glazed, in the interests of the amenity of those properties.

7.14 Turning to the impact on No10 Acorn Street, Officers are of the opinion that the proposed dwelling is an appropriate distance (16metres) and orientation (side on), such that there will not be a significant impact on the amenity of that property in terms of overlooking, loss of light or privacy.

The impact on landscape features

7.15 The comments from the Landscape Officer are noted. In broad terms the proposed development is not considered to result in significant harm to existing landscape features. The Landscape Officer recommends that existing landscape features, including the ash tree to the front of the site and trees abutting the northern boundary are protected from damage during construction, this can be achieved through a planning condition Page 44 3/11/1927/FP

which, in the interests of the amenity of the site and surroundings, is both necessary and reasonable.

7.16 The application does not provide significant levels of information in respect of hard and soft landscaping. The Landscape Officer comments that the parking area to the front of plots 11-15 is close to the boundary and there is limited opportunity for soft landscaping with the boundary which may result in a potentially bland appearance. However, this is not raised as a reason for refusal by the Landscape Officer and it is considered that the provision of a carefully considered landscape scheme would address any such concerns. Overall, given the lack of detailed information on the proposed plans, it is considered that the provision of a landscape condition would be both necessary and reasonable in ensuring that the development provides appropriate landscaping to soften the impact of the development with the surroundings.

The impact on the public right of way

7.17 As noted above, Public Footpath 20 dissects the site. The proposed development does not seek consent to remove or alter that footpath. The Ramblers Association have commented in the consultation process that the right of way should be at least 2 metres wide and that any diversion of the footway should be undertaken by the appropriate legal procedures. Officers can confirm that the public right of way is a minimum of 2 metres wide, in accordance with the comments from the Ramblers Association and Policy LRC9 of the Local Plan. Officers recommend the inclusion of a directive advising of the applicant of the procedures necessary relating to any diversion of the footpath.

Affordable Housing and Lifetime Homes

7.18 The application includes provision for 6 units of affordable housing which represents 40% provision in accordance with policy HSG3. Policy HSG4 states that the size, type and tenure of affordable housing will be determined by, amongst over things, the availability of public subsidy. Consultation with the Councils Housing Team indicates that the provision of 4no. 2 bed houses and 2no. 3 bed houses within plots 7-12 is acceptable and that the tenure mix should be 75% rental and 25% shared ownership.

7.19 The Parish Council have raised concern with the tenure mix and comment that it should be 100% shared ownership. The Housing Team have however commented that the New Affordable Homes Page 45 3/11/1927/FP

Commissioning Brief is a district-wide policy. The approved outline scheme (3/08/0569/OP) has an agreed S106 which complies with the 75%/25% split. The information provided by the Parish Council that there is already a higher percentage of affordable homes in the parish than the rest of the district does not mean that additional affordable homes for rent are not required to meet the needs of the Housing Register. This scheme provides 2 and 3 bed houses for families which provides the opportunity of mobility for young growing families to be accommodated in the district which are much needed. In accordance with the comments from the Housing Team, Officers are satisfied that the tenure mix provided is acceptable, in this case.

7.20 The application should also make provision for 15% lifetime homes in accordance with policy HSG6; this will also need to form part of the legal agreement in order to ensure delivery.

Financial contributions

7.21 As the application is for 16 residential units, the need for financial contributions is required under the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD and the Herts County Council (HCC) Planning Obligations Toolkit. HCC have confirmed that they will require contributions towards secondary education, childcare, youth and library facilities. Those figures are set out at the head of this report. The contributions sought are based on the number of units and bedrooms proposed, and the figures are considered necessary and reasonable based on pressures that the development will place on existing infrastructure. The obligations are therefore considered to meet the tests set out in S122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL) 2010.

7.22 The Parish Council have commented that the secondary contribution sought by the County Council should be directed to the local JMI School. HCC have however confirmed that the most recent data does not suggest that there will be more pupils for whom Hunsdon JMI is their nearest school than there are places. The forecast for the primary school planning area wherein Hunsdon lies indicates that there is an acceptable surplus of places for the duration of the current forecast. HCC acknowledge that Hunsdon JMI itself is currently full in most year groups, but that the development subject of this is application is a very small development and it would be difficult to justify a S106 primary contribution based on this.

7.23 The East Herts Council SPD also requires standard contributions towards open space provision, children and young people, recycling Page 46 3/11/1927/FP

facilities, community centres and village halls. The Council’s PPG17 audit identifies that there are deficiencies in the provision of parks and public gardens, outdoor sports facilities, and facilities for children and young people. It should however be noted that the PPG17 audit is not precise in how it assesses deficiencies in particular locations, such as outlying villages. What must therefore be considered is whether there is a need for such contributions arising from the development now being considered and where such contribution would be focused in order to mitigate against the impact of the development.

7.24 In respect of these matters, Officers have consulted with the Councils Leisure Services Manager and the Environmental Manager. It seems that the recreational land and community facilities are within the ownership of the Parish Council. The Council have received comments from Hunsdon Parish Council, who indicate that in respect of contributions towards parks and public gardens that contributions of the sum £5,100 are needed for outdoor furniture and storage space within the gardens of the village hall and play area and for bins, benches and other soft landscaping at other open spaces under the control of the Parish Council. The Parish comment that, in relation to outdoor sports facilities, that there is need for contributions totalling £13,250 towards the football pitches and tennis courts and the provision of a multi-play area. The Parish also set out that contributions for children and young people could also be allocated towards a shade canopy, tepee and artificial all weather play area which totals £2,295.

7.25 Having regards to the comments from the Parish Council and, taking into account the requirements of the Planning Obligations SPD, the above mentioned open space contributions are considered to meet the tests set out in S122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL) 2010.

Other matters

7.26 The Environment Agency have commented on the application and set out that planning conditions should be attached relating to decontamination of the site. The conditions recommended reflect those suggested by Environmental Health. In the interests of groundwater protection and, in accordance with policy ENV20, it is considered to be necessary and reasonable to attach planning conditions relating to groundwater protection.

7.27 The Parish Council raises concern with the impact of the development during the construction phase and the impact on the local road infrastructure. To address this concern and, in the interests of amenity Page 47 3/11/1927/FP

and road safety, Officers consider that it is necessary and reasonable to impose a planning condition requiring a construction method statement covering all aspects of the development, and a condition restricting the hours of operation of plant and machinery.

7.28 Policy ENG1 of the East of England Regional Plan requires that development proposals should encourage the supply of energy from decentralised, renewable and low carbon energy sources that new development of more than 10 dwellings should secure at least 10% of their energy from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources. The applicant has not provided any details in respect of the potential to use sustainable energy resources. However, given the requirements of policy ENG1 of the Regional Plan it is considered to be necessary and reasonable to require this through the provision of a planning condition.

8.0 Conclusion:

8.1 The application site is located within an allocated housing site. In principle the residential development of this site is acceptable. The development is not considered to result in a cramped development or overdevelopment of the site. Outline planning permission has previously been granted which considered the access, layout and scale of development to be acceptable. The development proposal now presented is very similar to that outline consent and is considered to have proper regard to the layout and grain of development within the immediate and wider locality. The proposed layout, scale and design of development is considered to respect local distinctiveness. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in access and parking terms and will not result in a significant impact on highway safety.

8.3 Planning Obligations are identified in this report as being necessary to mitigate the impact of the development on local infrastructure and, the provision of affordable housing will meet the local needs and the strategic targets of the Council in providing such levels of accommodation. These are matters which Officers advise are resolved through a S106 agreement in the normal way.

8.4 Subject to the signing of that S106 agreement and the provision of the suggested planning conditions, Officers therefore recommend that planning permission is granted.

Page 48 5 a 1

2 8 2

9 6 7 3 Garage 2

2 0

2 2 0

0 EEE b AAANNNEEE

L LLAAA

3 YYY L LL 2

YYY 0

RRRYYY c

UUURRR 1 RRRUUU 2 Hunsdon Lodge 9 DDDRRR 6 DDD

1 0

2 2

0 a

1 0

b TTT 6

TTT

TTT EEE 2 Hall EEE EEE EEE EEE EEE

RRR

RRR 1 0 TTT c TTT TTT SSS S S S 5 S S S 5 HHH HHH HHH

S GGG

53 IGIGIG 1 IGIGIG 4 u I I I 1 HHH r 5 HHH g HHH

e 7

5 4 9 1 r 4 0 2 y

5 6 a 41

4 8 7 23 2 PH

6 11 4

7 1 1

19 36 2 AAA AAA PH 3 CCC CCCOOO OOO 5 RRR 1 RRRNNN NNN S S S S S S

1 TTT

Vicary TTRTRR

2 RRR a RRR Cottages EEE EEEEE 1 Yewtree EEE 1 TTT House TTT

6 000 000 888 1 118188

1 1 1 7 BBB BBB

2 3

8 5 6 1

D D D D D D D D D

A A A A A A A A A

O O O O O O O O O

R R R R R R

R R R

S S S S S S ' ' ' S S S ' ' ' ' ' '

E E E

N N N E E E

5 WWIICICCKKK N N N LLLAAANNNDDDSSS S S S WWIICICCKKKLLLAAANNNDDDSSS R RROOOAAADDD S S S WWIICICCKKK R RROOOAAADDD a A A A LLLAAANNNDDDSSS ds S S S R RROOOAAADDD A A A A A A

T T T O O O T T T O O O T T T O O O

L L L S S S

C C C N N N

C C C

N N N

C C C

N N N

U U U 1

U U U R R R

R R R U U U 2

R R R D D D D D D O O O D D D O O O

O O O

T T T

D D D T T T

D D D 8 T T T

D D D

S S S S S S U U U S S S U U U

U U U T T T 1

T T T 1

T T T

0 0

1 1 2

The Rectory St Francis RRREEE

RRREEECCCTTTOOORRRYYY C CCLLLOOOSSSEEE Chapel

5 8 1

0 1

The Old Rectory

SITE

East Herts Council Address: Land south of, 10, Acorn Street, Hunsdon, Herts, SG12 8PB Wallfields Reference: 3/11/1927/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:2500 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL4113 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 16 January 2012 Page 49 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 50 Agenda Item 5c 5c 3/11/1818/FP - Erection of stock proof post and rail fencing, post and barbed wire fencing , scalpings to entrance and dropped kerb, (retrospective) at land adjacent to Lower Hatfield Road, Hertford SG13 8XX for Mr George Smith

Date of Receipt: 14.10.11 Type: Full – Major

Parish: BAYFORD HERTFORD

Ward: HERTFORD-CASTLE: HERTFORD RURAL-SOUTH

RECOMMENDATION:

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed fencing enclosures, hard standings, associated vehicle uses and engineering works to create the vehicle access would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the Green Belt and harmful to the appearance and character of this part of the Grade II* registered historic garden at Bayfordbury. The proposal would thereby be contrary to the provision of local plan policies ENV1, GBC14 and BH16 of the East Herts Local Plan.

(181811FP.SD)

1.0 Background:

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract. The land subject of the application is situated on the south eastern side of the B158, Lower Hatfield Road within the Metropolitan Green Belt and comprises a parcel of agricultural land, currently fallow meadow, part of the Grade II* registered park and garden of Bayfordbury.

1.2 The land is subject to an Article 4Direction, dated 7 June 2000, removing ‘permitted development rights’ to erect, construct, and maintain gates, fences, walls and other means of enclosure under Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (amended 2008).

1.3 The full extent of the land subject of the application is included in the registered designation of the Bayfordbury Grade II* Listed garden, which occupies 3.64 hectares of the 130 hectares of land around Bayfordbury mansion.

1.4 Historically, the lower section of land parallel to the B158 was the site of Page 51 3/11/1818/FP

a moated garden in 1766 with an extensive walled garden introduced by the turn of the 19 th century, with associated external gardens and garden buildings covering the whole of the lower area outlined in blue in the application site.

1.5 The land at present is not grazed, has been close mown, with the rear boundary of the lower paddock fenced with post and rail softwood fencing approximately 1.4m in height. This upper area of land extends up a steep incline to the boundary of Bayfordbury Pinetum.

1.6 The proposal comprises the erection of stock proof post and rail fencing,(1.07m high) and post and barbed wire fencing, (1.07m high) to the boundaries of the ‘L’ shaped parcel of land, with a post and rail livestock enclosure ‘corral’ located, subject to the amended plan OT/GS/1.2, on the northern side of the entrance. The entrance itself would be extended and improved with scalpings to provide a consolidated vehicular access from a dropped kerb extending 15m into the site. Part of the fencing enclosure to the rear boundary of the lower paddock has already been erected at a height of 1.4m and significant and extensive unauthorised tree felling and shrub clearance has been carried out on the site.

2.0 Site History:

2.1 There is limited planning history relating to the site which has remained as a historic garden site, part of the open parkland and garden associated with the Grade II* listed Bayfordbury park and garden.

2.2 A planning application for the construction of a dropped kerb to the existing agricultural access, ref: 3/03/2027/FP was submitted in 2003 and subsequently withdrawn.

2.3 A further application for the construction of a dropped kerb was submitted in 2004, ref: 3 /04/0961/FP and refused for the following three reasons:

1. The proposal due to the insufficient distance between the highway and the proposed gates would give rise to additional traffic hazards by reason of vehicles being unable to pull clear of the highway when accessing the site. The proposal would thereby be prejudicial to highway safety, and a potential danger to road users, contrary to policy M11 of the East Herts Local Plan.

2. The site is situated within a Landscape Conservation Area as defined in policy RA11 of the East Herts Local Plan. If permitted the Page 52 3/11/1818/FP

development by reason of the loss of existing planting and the provision of a large area of hard surfacing, would have a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the area, contrary to the provisions of that policy.

3. The creation of the vehicular access and the provision of the required visibility splays, would result in the loss of the existing bank and hedgerow planting and would thereby be detrimental to the character and visual amenities of this part of the rural area.

2.2 The site was bought by the current applicant in October 2005, and in October 2011, it was brought to the Council’s attention that tree felling, clearance, burning of timber, and the erection of fencing was taking place on the land in contravention of the Article 4 direction attached to the land. The Council’s enforcement officer asked the applicant to stop works, and submit an application for the unauthorised works. The current application has been submitted for the erection of fencing to the boundaries of the land, identified on the site plan, with the provision of a fenced ‘corral’, the modification and consolidation of the access, additional areas of hard standing, with the provision of a dropped kerb.

3.0 Consultation Responses:

3.1 County Highways do not wish to restrict the grant of permission subject to conditions; for sight lines of 2.4 x 160m being provided in both east and west directions from the site access along the Lower Hatfield Road; details of the surfacing of the access with surface water drainage provision. The provision of the sight lines, to the east of the entrance will require any fencing to be set back the entire length of the site frontage.

3.2 The Environment Agency does not have any objections to the proposal; the fencing will allow the water to flow through if flooding does occur. They do not consider that the works proposed pose an unacceptable risk, although a Flood Defence Licence is required for development within 8 m of Bayford Brook, which cannot be granted retrospectively.

3.3 The Garden History Society: initially commented (21November 2011) that Bayfordbury is a landscape of national historic importance, included in the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of special historic interest, where the application site is specifically included in the garden boundary. On such sites ‘development proposals that significantly harm their special historic character appearance or setting will not be permitted’. The Trust is concerned that the potential for damage of the historic landscape is high.

Page 53 3/11/1818/FP

3.4 In 1766 this area was developed as a moated garden and an extensive walled garden added by the turn of the 19 th century with associated gardens and garden buildings, confirmed by crop marks on aerial photographs. Although there is no objection to the area being used for grazing, it is considered that the area of the proposed corral, by reason of the concentrated livestock use in the area, would do extensive and irreparable damage to any garden remains.

3.5 Hertfordshire Gardens Trust (HGT) subsequently commented again in February 2012, that they would be opposed to any encroachment on this landscape by the provision of the required highway sight lines. The intrusion of such a large section of land, the Trust considered, would destroy the integrity of the space. It has been specifically included in the register of the park and garden area, even though not within the bulk of the grounds, because of its history as a discrete area of walled garden and all that implies.

3.6 They consider that to encroach on this area would destroy its integrity and the reason for its designation. Maintenance of the integrity would also include the retaining of the current hedge line as it is, which would be lost if sight lines are provided. Furthermore the insertion of this large urban element into the rural area would destroy the setting of the whole heritage asset.

3.7 The Trust is also opposed to any access off the adjacent Bayfordbury drive, as this area near the brook is known to have historic structures and some of the early plant introductions at Bayfordbury.

3.8 Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre: have no comments on the proposed application.

3.9 Veolia Water: no comments have been received.

3.10 Landscape Section: no comments have been received.

3.11 County Archaeology Section: comment that the ‘corral’ area is part of the registered garden and the parkland is included in the County’s Historic Environment Record No 7317. The larger area in 1766 was the site of moated formal garden, in 1807 enlarged to add a large walled garden, with associated external gardens and garden buildings established within the entire field, lower field as shown blue on the fencing plan. There is clear evidence of these buildings towards the north eastern boundary of the site. It is also apparent that the eastern and southern boundaries, as of 1807, survive, as a substantial bank on the eastern boundary and a steep bank along much of the southern boundary. There is also still Page 54 3/11/1818/FP

evidence of the Bayford Brook, originally part of an ornamental water feature, although silted up, it is still present. There are also visible surface remains of the wide path shown on the 1807 map that links the site access to the historic bridge across the brook which survives, though in a poor state.

3.12 It is likely that substantial remains of the historic gardens may survive and it is also likely that prolonged use of the site (specifically the ‘corral’) may cause damage to these remains, although general limited grazing to the rest of the site is unlikely to have any significant impact on the remains.

3.13 The position of the corral and hard standing is such that it should be regarded as likely to have an impact on heritage assets of archaeological, landscape and historic interest and the County Archaeologist recommends that planning permission should not be granted for this aspect of the scheme. However if the LPA recommends grant the perimeter fencing, provision via condition should be made to ensure that there is no adverse impact upon the surviving, historic boundaries of the 18 th century and 19 th century garden.

3.14 The County Archaeologist commented further on the 2 February 2012 that as regards fencing, the use of electric fencing might be a solution that obviates the need for below ground archaeological investigations, being more acceptable in terms of its limited impact upon the registered parkland.

3.15 With regard to the significant issues raised by the requirement for sight lines for the gated access to the site, archaeology are in agreement with HGT that this would be an unacceptable encroachment into the parkland landscape that would destroy the integrity of this space and the reason for its designation. The current boundaries are also part of the historic importance of the site and should be retained to maintain this integrity as undesignated heritage assets in their own right.

4.0 Town and Parish Council Representations:

4.1 Hertford Town Council object to the proposed development, as it is situated on a fast area of road, on a bend; the proposed kerb will create poor visibility and a dangerous ingress and egress. The proposed fencing and barbed wire would be detrimental to the openness of the area. The Town Council was also disappointed that the applicant had not provided any justification for the proposal.

4.2 Bayford Parish Council comment that the land is covered by an Article 4 Page 55 3/11/1818/FP

and part of the listed parkland, therefore no development, fencing or hard standing of any type is allowed, this includes the fence already erected and the proposed corral. The land is in the Green Belt, so any development can only be allowed in exceptional circumstances and the dropped kerb is not necessary for an agricultural development.

4.3 Brickendon Liberty Parish Council comment that although the site is beyond the parish boundaries, the Parish Council wish to record their objections to the application on the grounds that further access points onto the Lower Hatfield Road would be dangerous due to slow moving vehicles accessing the site from a busy declassified road.

5.0 Other Representations:

5.1 The application has been advertised by way of a press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.

5.2 15 letters of representation have been received which can be summarised as follows:

• The application says no trees will be cut down, trees and shrubs have already been felled, removed and burnt on site, on the south eastern boundary • Any traffic using the access would be hazardous to other motorists • The land is Green Belt, not suited to the proposal, destroying habitats • Vehicles on the Green Belt land will detract from the natural beauty of the parkland landscape. • Biodiversity check list not answered correctly, there is a stream on the site, Bayford Brook runs alongside the fence line • This is an area of land protected by an Article 4 direction, dropped kerb and hard standing could make an access for caravans, • Post and rail, fencing has been erected without permission and trees cut back using heavy plant, and burning. • The proposal is dangerous in respect of the highway safety. • The road is a heavily used main route and further turning traffic emptying on to it will cause danger • The natural beauty of the historic landscape is being ruined • The proposed works will be detrimental to the high quality of the river valley landscape both in the nature and specification of the access and fenced corral proposed on the site within 500m of the Bayfordbury Pinetum • The land has always been used as agricultural land so there is no need for a dropped kerb Page 56 3/11/1818/FP

• Owners bring water and fodder to the chained horses on the site , the site has been cleared and the front fence is derelict, many trees have disappeared from the front boundary • The adjacent field was occupied by 52 caravans, is now used by chained /tethered horses, • this application site was used previously as arable land, only occupied seasonally so the lack of a dropped kerb was not an issue, never had animals grazing on this site. • This was originally a pumpkin field as an historic garden. • The road has a 60mph speed limit with cars entering the site this would be hazardous.

6.0 Policy:

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

GBC1 Green Belt GBC14 Landscape Character ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping BH1 Archaeology BH16 Historic Parks and Gardens TR2 Access to New Development

6.2 In addition, the following National policy guidance is relevant:- Planning Policy Guidance 2, Green Belts Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment

6.3 The Council’s Landscape Character assessment SPD is also relevant in this case.

7.0 Considerations:

7.1 The site lies within the Green Belt and is part of the Registered Grade II* Bayfordbury Park and Garden, on the outskirts of Hertford sited alongside the B158, Lower Hatfield Road.

7.2 The main considerations are:

• Whether the proposal is appropriate development within the Green Belt and preserves the openness of the Green Belt or otherwise causes harm to the visual amenity of the Green Belt • Whether the proposed development would have an adverse impact Page 57 3/11/1818/FP

on the character, appearance and setting of the Grade II* registered garden • Whether the proposal is acceptable in terms of highway safety. • Whether the proposal has an adverse impact on the landscape character of the area.

Principle of development

7.3 As the site lies within the Green Belt, the principle consideration is whether the proposal comprises appropriate development in the Green Belt and, if not whether, there are other material considerations to which such weight can be attached as to clearly outweigh any harm caused to the Green Belt and thereby constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ required to justify inappropriate development.

7.4 The land is subject to an Article 4 direction which removes ‘permitted development rights’ on all the land that is designated registered garden under Part 2, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 , regarding: ‘the erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure’. This direction was imposed in order that the Council would have greater control over development that might impact on the Green Belt and the registered garden.

7.5 The ‘L’ shaped site comprising two fields, has had limited use over the years being a garden / arable land in terms of the history of use, with limited chained/tethered horses being left on the land at various times but none recently. The grazing of 2 to 3 chained/ tethered horses has been established on the adjacent site to the north, which is not part of the registered park and garden. Vehicular access to this site is gained for the water and straw for the horses from the application site and access.

7.6 Policy GBC1of the Local Plan sets out the forms of development and uses considered appropriate in the Green Belt. In this case the land use is agricultural, which is an appropriate use within the Green Belt under GBC1 (a). This has been established for some considerable time, with only the occasional informal grazing of chained /tethered horses on the site.

7.7 The proposal seeks permission for the provision of fencing and enclosures, post and rail or post and wire to the boundaries 1.07m high, with a post and rail fenced ‘corral’, an access consolidated with tarmac road scalpings providing an additional turning area and hard standing area. If used for horses, the land of approximately 9.0 acres, according to the British Horse Society Welfare Standards would make provision for Page 58 3/11/1818/FP

approximately 6-9 horses dependant upon their size, to be supported on the land. Although the upper field is on a steep incline and may not be suitable for grazing use, in which the provision would be reduced.

7.8 In principle, grazing of the land is an appropriate use in the Green Belt and limited non-contained grazing of horses on the land could be reasonably accommodated without the loss of any future use of the agricultural land. The fencing proposed within the application at 1.07m is considered to be equitable to the enclosure of the land, of a similar height to the few remnants of post and barbed wire fencing that remains along the boundaries of the site.

7.9 It is normally considered reasonable to enclose agricultural land in order to retain stock, and the height, form and materials of the fencing itself would normally be considered to be acceptable. The field fronting the highway would be enclosed by post and rail fencing, the rear paddock stretching to the boundary with Bayfordbury Pinetum would be enclosed by post and barbed/ round wire with a timber top.

7.10 However, whilst accepting that the development may constitute appropriate development in principle, in terms of Policy ENV1, the scale of fencing in concert with the new modified access, the resited ‘corral’, the additional hard surfacing, dropped kerb and the insertion of three gates would overall have an unsympathetic and detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the rural locality, urbanising the visual aspect of the site, thereby having a significant adverse impact on the rural character and appearance, of the Green Belt area. This would be clearly contrary to the advice given in PPG2 at paragraph 3.15.

7.11 The amended plan submitted on the 17 November 2011, although relocating the ‘corral’ from the sensitive north west corner next to Bayford Brook, to the other side of the existing access on the northern boundary, does not change the harmful visual aspect of the proposed development or its adverse impact on the Green Belt. In addition to the harm that would be caused to the visual quality of the Metropolitan Green Belt, the proposal would also cause additional harm in terms of the impact on the registered garden and archaeology which are discussed below.

Impact on the Registered Grade II* listed Park and Garden

7.12 The whole of the ‘L’ shaped field as defined, is registered as a Grade II* listed garden, with a significant history from the 18 th and 19 th century on the site, wherein there are archaeological remains on the site of significant structures, a walled garden and garden buildings within the area of the whole of the lower (blue lined) paddock. Indications of the Page 59 3/11/1818/FP

extent of the structures and historic remains on the site have been identified on maps of 1807 and 1766 provided by the Hertfordshire Gardens Trust, a statutory consultee.

7.13 The Trust objects to the proposal and considers that the integrity of the heritage asset and the potential for damage to the historic landscape is high especially in the area previously considered for the ‘corral’. Although there is no objection to the continued limited existing use of the remaining area of the garden land for grazing, with stock proof fencing, the area along Bayford Brook should be fenced ‘against livestock’ as the Trust consider that , the ‘poaching caused by the livestock in this area would do extensive and irreparable damage to any garden remains’

7.14 Under local plan policy BH16 and policies HE9 and HE10 of national planning guidance PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment, the registered Grade II* garden is a designated heritage asset and as such the character, appearance and setting of the historic landscape should be protected.

‘Substantial harm to or loss of a Grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance Grade I or II* registered parks and gardens, should be wholly exceptional.

Where the proposed application would lead to substantial harm or loss of the significance of the heritage asset as in this case, the Local Planning Authority should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that:

• The substantial harm to or loss of significance is necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss.

7.15 Officers consider that there is no overwhelming pubic interest benefit identified in the proposal to warrant any harm being caused to the significance of the heritage asset, which is satisfactorily protected in its current status, and therefore the proposal should be refused. The fencing, hardstanding and vehicular access would urbanise the site and cause substantial loss, and harm to its heritage features. It would therefore be contrary to the provisions of policy HE9 and HE10 of PPS5.

Archaeology

7.16 The lower field as identified on plan OT/GS/1.2 outlined in blue is the site of 18 th and 19 th century garden, and garden buildings and Page 60 3/11/1818/FP

deposits/remains which the county archaeologist considers are of some significance, where the proposed provision of the ‘corral ‘and other fencing, hard surfacing and modified access and the provision of the visibility splays would have an impact on significant archaeological remains.

7.17 The proposed encroachment of such a large section of the land would destroy the integrity of the open space, specifically included in the registered area, because of its history as a discreet area of walled garden. Maintenance of this integrity would of course include retaining the current hedge line and banks as existing, wherein the insertion of the large urban element of the visibility splays, in this rural area would result in the significant loss of areas of historic hedgerow and banking and would be likely to destroy the setting of the heritage asset contrary to the provision of policies ENV2 and GBC14 of the Local Plan and HE10 of PPS5.

Highway Safety and Access

7.18 County Highways do not wish to restrict the grant of permission for the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions, for the provision of visibility splays 2.4m x 160m along the edge of the Lower Hatfield Road in both directions, the surfacing of the access to a depth of 10m into the site and the provision of surface water drainage.

7.19 To satisfy the requirements of the highway authority, however, the existing banking, planting and remaining hedgerow on the front boundaries would have to be cut back to provide the necessary visibility splays. This would destroy the existing historic bank boundary fronting the B158, having a significant adverse impact on the historic character and appearance of the registered Grade II* garden, and be detrimental to the whole character, appearance and visual amenity of the rural area and the listed park and garden.

7.20 As such, the proposed construction of the modified access with dropped kerb and the required visibility splays, in terms of the provision of highway safety would necessitate the loss and destruction of historic features of the registered garden, causing harm to the significance of the heritage asset contrary to the provisions of policies HE9 and HE10 of PPS5.

Landscape Character

7.21 The application site is located within Landscape Character Area 63 which includes Bayfordbury and the surrounding parkland. Surrounded Page 61 3/11/1818/FP

by arable farmland the area has a sparse settlement pattern with gentle undulating landform, where this area is unusual in being dominated by a series of parklands. The strategy for maintaining and improving the landscape character of this particular area includes:

• the promotion of hedgerows along historic boundaries • encourage the appropriate restoration of parkland features that have been destroyed with due regard to both historic context and improved biodiversity. • resist any development within parkland areas to ensure that historically valuable parkland features are not lost but safeguarded. This concept extends to the setting of listed parks and gardens and may therefore extend beyond their present boundaries.

7.22 In terms of the proposed development that would require a more intensive treatment of the access, with dropped kerb and invasive sight line provisions it is the officer’s opinion that this would have a significantly detrimental impact on existing historic landscape features of the registered garden and its character and appearance as part of the landscape character of the area contrary to the provisions of Policy ENV2 and GBC14 of the local plan.

Residential amenity

7.23 There are limited residential dwellings, apart from Burrowfield to the north on the other side of the B158, in close proximity to the site.

7.24 Although neighbours are not directly affected, the urban character and appearance of the entrance and sight lines would be apparent to owners of neighbouring properties, at Bayfordbury and Bayfordbury Park Farm, likely to exit onto and travel along the B158.

8.0 Conclusion:

8.1 Officers consider that the proposal would constitute ‘appropriate’ development in the Green Belt, but the harm caused by reason of the fencing enclosures, hard standings, associated vehicle uses would be unacceptable and thereby detrimental to the visual amenity of the Green Belt and harmful to the character and appearance of this part of the Grade II* registered historic garden at Bayfordbury.

8.2 The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the provisions of policies ENV1, GBC14 and BH16 of the Local Plan and national policy guidance PPG2 : Green Belts and PPS5: Planning for the Historic Page 62 3/11/1818/FP

Environment.

8.3 The application is accordingly recommended for refusal for the following reasons set out above.

Page 63 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 64

1 7

1 1

2 5

181

8 5 3 7

1 187

Nursery 6

1 0

2 2 7 2 01 1

1 5

4 4

3 1

Brickfield Farm 2

1 5

2 2

3 2 4

1 8

1 4

2 2

2 1 7 6

1 2 5

2 1

7 5 3 1

8 1 4 8

7a 7 The 2

Harts 2

Horns 2 (PH)

4 2 2

3 6

1 3

2 2

1 1 76

2 78

Terrace Wood Farm 2

2 3

5 6

3 2

1 1

1 0

6 2 8

4 1

8 3

8 2

3 DDD 2 AAA 9

ROROARDOADAD

OODODD 3 7

RRARAA 2

RORORO 3

0 3

0 3 LLLLLL 5

M IM MILIL L

S S SILILIL 4 NNNMMM 1 OROORSR S SIL ILLILLL HHRHNRNR NM M M HOHOHNOSNSNS OORORR HHH 2

2 7 2 7 a 2 9 2 9 a 31 31b

31a 31c

2 6

0 1

4 7

4 37 8

6 1

2 Burrowfield 5

6 4 3 3

ADADAD O ODOD D R RARDADAD RORAORAOA RORORO 31

LDLDLD IEIEDIED D 2 e F FLFL L 1 d T TIETILEDLIEDLD i HAHTAHFTAIFETIEFIE rs HAHTAHFTAFTF e HAHAHA iv re

R nt

4 e e 2 h C R R R T ERERER

n OWOWEOWRERER

e LOWLOWLEOWE E 8 L L L 4

d OWOWOW 6 ar L L L 4 G

2 5

SITE 2

8 7

5 9

9 0

c 9 0

1 5

888 1

558588 0 9 1 15 158588 5 BB B1 1 1 2

BB B 7

74 1

5 0

1 7

7 1

5 e

6 8

1 3

0 2 9

0 2 7 1 1

3 1

0 1 2 2 1

3 1

4 2

6 5

6 3

7 7

6 4

8 4 1

The Directors House

East Herts Council Address: Land adjacent to, Lower Hatfield Road, Bayford, SG13 8XX Wallfields Reference: 3/11/1818/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:5000 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL3110 & TL3111 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 7 February 2012 Page 65 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 66 Agenda Item 5d 5d 3/11/2050/FP – Continued use of land to allow market stalls to be positioned in the centre of North Street on Thursdays and Saturdays at North Street, Bishop’s Stortford for East Herts District Council

Date of Receipt: 01.12.2012 Type: Full – Minor

Parish: BISHOP’S STORTFORD

Ward: BISHOP’S STORTFORD - MEADS

RECOMMENDATION:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. The use hereby permitted shall cease on or before 28th February 2013.

Reason : To allow the impact of the proposed road closure on the free flow of traffic in the area to be monitored and assessed in the interests of highway safety.

2. The use of the market hereby permitted shall be restricted to the hours of 0500 to 1600 on Thursdays and Saturdays only.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Directive:

1. You are reminded that the temporary TRO (Traffic Regulation Order) terminates on the 30 December 2012 and you will therefore need to apply for an extension to the TRO for the remaining period of this permission if the market is to continue in the centre of North Street.

Summary of Reasons for Decision

(205011FP.MP)

Page 67 3/11/2050/FP

Background:

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract.

1.2 Members may recall that planning permission was granted by the Development Control Committee on 09 February 2011 for market stalls to be located in the centre of North Street on Thursdays and Saturdays. That was a temporary permission which expires on the 28 February 2012. A temporary permission was granted to allow the impact of the road closure on the free flow of traffic in the area to be monitored and assessed in the interests of highway safety.

1.3 The market has been in operation over the last year and the applicant has submitted traffic monitoring information with the application to support the continuation of the use of the land for a market on Thursdays and Saturdays.

1.4 The use of the land for market stalls is part of a revitalisation programme which is using countrywide performance reward grant funding to try and make Bishop’s Stortford more competitive by introducing a range of improvements including pedestrianisation, relocation of stalls, the purchase of new uniform stalls and the installation of electricity for the stalls.

1.5 The focus of the revitalisation programme is the consolidation of the town’s Thursday market in North Street.

2.0 Site History:

2.1 The only relevant planning history is that mentioned above (LPA reference 3/10/1152/FP) – the grant of planning permission for a temporary period for the change of use of the land in North Street for market traders.

3.0 Consultation Responses:

3.1 Hertfordshire County Council Highways have commented that they do not object to the planning application. The Highways Officer comments that the findings of the traffic monitoring report are as to be expected.

The Highways Officer does have some criticism that the traffic monitoring report does not make reference to queue length or journey time surveys nor does it refer to changes to the conditions at the Bridge Street/Link Road junctions or implications on traffic flow and capacity on Link Road. Page 68 3/11/2050/FP

The Highways Officer also notes that the report refers to an increase in traffic flows along Water Lane of 59% which, when using the figures contained within the report actually equates to a 147% increase in traffic flows.

4.0 Town Council Representations:

4.1 Bishop’s Stortford Town Council have made no comment on the planning application but seek clarification from the Council in respect of the following issues:

• North Street is not currently closed on a Saturday for the market traders; • The original application was for a six month trial period; • Better signage for ‘no parking’ when the road is closed; • Clarification of the requirements of stall holders.

5.0 Other Representations:

5.1 The applications have been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.

5.2 Three letters of representation have been received which can be summarised as follows:

• The traffic survey undertaken by the applicant is insufficient in terms of the location, number of surveys and time of the year; • The traffic survey does not properly take into account other future changes to the town and parking; • The closure of North Street results in traffic congestion to the surrounding highway network; • The market has not been operating on Saturdays and therefore the traffic implications of a closure on this day have not been assessed; • The application and the TRO are linked and the termination period of the application should therefore be 30 December 2012; • Fire and emergency vehicle access has not been adhered to; • No new traders are being allowed in South Street/Potter Street and traders have some concerns with the current operation of the market in North Street.

5.3 Councillor N Symonds has commented that she has no objection to the application but does comment that the stall holder’s views should be sought.

Page 69 3/11/2050/FP

6.0 Policy:

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality STC1 Development in Town Centres and Edge-of-Centre

7.0 Considerations:

7.1 The site is located within the built up area of Bishop’s Stortford where, in principle there is no objection to development. The main considerations relate to whether the siting of the market place within North Street is acceptable in retail planning terms, having regard to policy STC1 of the Local Plan. The other key consideration is whether the development is acceptable in highway terms.

Policy STC1

7.2 Policy STC1 of the Local Plan states that the preferred location for new retail proposals will be the town centre, followed by edge-of-centre sites and that such developments will be permitted where the proposal is consistent with the character and role of the town centre; the development would be accessible by a choice of transport means other than the private car and where parking provision, access and traffic congestion are satisfactory. The site is in a town centre location and as such complies with the aims of Policy STC1.

7.3 Several bus stops are within proximity of North Street which, together with the train station allows visitors to access the town centre by public transport modes.

7.4 It is acknowledged that some of the existing short-stay parking spaces along North Street would not be available during the market’s operating times on Thursdays and Saturdays, however adequate public car parking is available elsewhere to serve the market and the town centre as a whole.

Highway matters

7.5 The previous approval of planning permission within LPA reference 3/10/1152/FP, considered that the provision of the market stalls within North Street would not result in significant congestion or restrict access to an extent that would warrant refusal of planning permission. A planning condition was attached to the previous permission requiring the Page 70 3/11/2050/FP

provision of a temporary TRO (Traffic Regulation Order) which, in addition to the temporary planning permission (which expires on 28 February 2012), would give the Council an opportunity to monitor the impacts of the road closure and address any problems that arise as a result of the Order being in place.

7.6 Monitoring of the situation with regards to traffic flows has been undertaken and has been submitted with the application. Two traffic data surveys took place to assess the impact of traffic on other roads in the vicinity when access to that part of North Street (between its junction with the High Street and Barrett Lane) was restricted to vehicular traffic. Both surveys covered a seven day period at three locations, 1) at Water Lane, at the position where it nears its junction with Potter Street, 2) the A1250 Link Road in the vicinity of Charringtons House and 3) at the High Street in the vicinity of the Corn Exchange.

7.7 From the Town Council comments and third party letters of representation it is understood that the market has not been operating in the centre of North Street during a Saturday. The traffic report has only therefore provided information of the traffic situation on a Thursday.

7.8 The first survey commenced on the 16 May 2011 (prior to the TRO being put in place) and the second survey was undertaken on the 05 December 2011. The time delay between the two surveys was considered to be appropriate to allow the ‘bedding in’ of the TRO.

7.9 The Report finds that there was generally an increase in traffic flows throughout the week when comparing the May and December figures. The report indicates that this is not unexpected, given that traffic volumes are increasing nationally by 6-9% and given that the December survey was undertaken in the approach to the festive season and during a period of adverse weather where higher car use would be expected. With regards to the Thursday traffic flows the report indicates that there is an increase of 59% in traffic flows on a Thursday at the Water Lane location. Although the comments from the Highways Officer indicate that, using the information submitted, that there has been an increase in traffic flows at Water Lane of 147%.

7.10 The report does, however, comment that the findings were to be expected, insofar as it was anticipated that traffic volume would migrate to other roads when the TRO is in place. However, the report indicates that there is no evidence to suggest that other roads are not able to cope with the additional capacity, and the Highway Authority appears to concur with that conclusion.

Page 71 3/11/2050/FP

7.11 Whilst the County Highways Officer does have some criticisms of the report, the Officer confirms that its findings are to be expected and concludes that the Highways Authority does not therefore wish to object to the continuation of the Market until the end of the TRO. Whilst Officers are therefore mindful of the criticism raised with the traffic report by Highways and third parties letters of representation, they are guided by the Highway Authorities conclusions that the continued use of North Street for a market will not result in an unacceptable loss of access or increase in congestion so as to warrant the refusal of the planning application.

7.12 As noted above, the market has not been operating on a Saturday. The application does however seek an extension of the permission for a year on both a Thursday and Saturday. The monitoring information submitted by the applicant provides information only with regard to the current situation of the market operating on a Thursday. The grant of this further temporary permission will, however, allow for further monitoring of the traffic implications of Saturday markets, and the Council will then be able to reassess the situation at the expiry of this permission.

7.13 It is noted that the TRO expires on 30 December 2012 and this application proposes to extend the temporary permission for the use of the land for a market until February 2013. If the market were to operate between the expiry of the TRO and the expiry of any planning permission granted, an extension of the temporary TRO would be required and Officers recommend that a directive is attached to the grant of planning permission informing the applicant of this. Officers note that a planning condition was attached to the previous permission requiring the implementation of a TRO. However, as a planning condition is not necessary where it replicates the requirements of other legislation, and Officers are aware that a TRO is necessary in this case to close the road to vehicular traffic, the provision of a planning condition requiring this is not therefore considered necessary in this case.

7.14 A condition was imposed within LPA reference 3/10/1152/FP to restrict the use of the site for the market to the hours between 0500 and 1600 on Thursdays and Saturdays. This is also recommended as a planning condition on this application and it will, in Officers opinion, reduce the impact that the road closure may have upon the free flow of traffic during peak evening hours.

8.0 Conclusion:

8.1 The proposal is for a use that is appropriate to the town centre location of the site and as such the development complies with the aims of Policy Page 72 3/11/2050/FP

STC1.

8.2 In accordance with the representations made by County Highways, Officers consider that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon access, parking and congestion. A further temporary permission will enable greater monitoring of traffic movements as a result of the development, and in particular will enable an assessment to be made of any impacts resulting from the development on Saturdays.

8.3 Having regard to the above considerations, it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions at the head of this report.

Page 73 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 74 7c 9

11 5 to 8

1 7b The Chantry 7

C o

n 1

i t

f o

e 1

4 r

o C

t o

1 u 10

r o t

0 t 2 2 1 3

21 YMCA

2 Y 1 ns a so r at d W

1 4

o 2

1 9 DDD AAADDD RRROOOAAA MM R RR AAAMM DDDHHHAAA AAADDD HHHAAA Water House 22 EEE

to 1 AAANNNEEE 0 3 LLLAAA 2 EEERRR L LLAAA AAATTTEEERRR

PH WWAAA 9

29c PH

a 9 Church 2 SITE

a 6

2 2 5

KKK 9

AAALLLKKK

WWAAA 1 c

9 2 EEE W W 4

5 CCC

4 CCCEEE NNNCCC 1 NNN 5

2 RRREEENNN 1 LLLOORRR

7 FFFLLL

b 2 1 0

5 6

4 2 6 El Sub Sta 2 Hall

1 4

1 2 Guild The MM House LLLIIAIAAMM IILILLLLLIII

1 Old WWIII

4 OOSESESE Barn CCCLLLOOSESESE GG C CC 3

RRRIININNGG Bank

EAEAEARRR 2

EAEAEA 0 1 9 SSS SSSEAEAEA 5 SSS 2

3 AAANNNEEE TTTTTT L LLAAANNN RRREEETTTTTT S BBBAAARRRRRR h BBBAAA BBB 1 o 4

p K 4 Sworders

in s

g 1 1

S s B o

1 tr e w t e Yard

et e

M l o 1

5 Bank

4 1

3 7

1 3

NNN NNN NNN OOO OOO OOO

RRR RRR RRR BBB TTT BBB TTT BBB TTT

HHH E E E 1 AAA HHH E E E

AAA HHH E E E AAA 0

SSS N N N SSS N N N S S S N N N SSS SSS SSS BBB A A A BBB A A A

BBB TTT A A A

TTT 9 TTT OOO L L L

OOO RRR L L L L L L 2 OOO RRR RRR WWW WWW EEE WWW EEE R R R EEE R R R R R R EEE EEE E E E EEE E E E

L L L E E E LLL 1 TTT TTT T T T AAA TTT T T T 1 T T T

AAA 1 4 A A A NNN A A A NNN A A A EEE EEE W W W

EEE W W W

W W W 9

Bank 2

7 5

t Bank o 3

P o

M l 4 i c 13 a e 9 11 g PH i S s The George t t 7 r a a t 2 i Hotel t o 5 e n s 1 ' 4 BRIDGEBRIDGE STREET STREET C 8 6 BRIDGEBRIDGE STREET STREET o 10

u 1

r 0

t 2 1

PH 2

2 1

1 0 3

3 a 5 1 PPP

PPP E E E

MMM PPP E E E

MMM E E E MMM AAA AAA N N N 3 N N N AAA LLL N N N AAA LLL A A A MMM A A A

RRR MMM A A A

RRR MMM L L L L L L RRR 7 EEE L L L EEE

KKK EEE 2 KKK PH KKK RRR S S S TTT RRR S S S TTT RRR S S S EEETTT EEE SSS L L L 5 EEE EEE L L L SSS I I I EEEEEE EEE 5 L L L EEE SSS I I I RRREEE TTT I I I RRR TTT L L L TTTRRR TTT L L L O O O TTT LLL O O O SSS O O O 30 S SSTTT AAA 9 S SS Corn S SS AAA V V V HHH SSS AAA V V V

SSS V V V GGGHHH NNN IIGIGG TTT NNN E E E IIGIGG TTT NNN E E E HHHIII TTT E E E HHH EEE HHH RRR EEE D D D 7 RRR 7 D D D RRR D D D Exchange EEE EEE EEE EEE TTT 4 TTT

3 0 4 9

1 13 9 5

3 4

MMM 6 MMM AAA AAA RRR 1

RRR 5

KKK KKK 1 KKK 3 EEE

EEE 8 TTT 4 TTT RRREEE AAARRR 1 QQQUUUAAA

SSSQQQ

1 PC 3 14 3 St Michael's Church 2 3 This copy has been produced specifically for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528

East Herts Council Address: North Street, Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire Wallfields Reference: 3/11/2050/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:1250 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL4821SE Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 7 February 2012 Page 75 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 76 Agenda Item 5e 5e 3/11/2216/FO – Variation of condition 6 of LPA reference 3/11/0544/FP which states "The use of the temporary car park as shown on plan no. 4156/05 shall cease upon the completion of the approved works to the car parks and the temporary surfacing shall be removed and the land reinstated within 1 month of that date" to allow the temporary car park to be used until end of April 2012 at Land adjacent to the River Stort (East side from Grange Paddocks to Castle Gardens), Bishop’s Stortford CM23 2HH for East Herts Council

Date of Receipt: 03.01.2012 Type: Full – Minor

Parish: BISHOP’S STORTFORD

Ward: BISHOP’S STORTFORD - MEADS

RECOMMENDATION:

That, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. The use of the temporary car park as shown on plan no. 4156/05 Rev A shall cease on 30 April 2012 and the temporary surfacing shall be removed and the land reinstated within 1 month of that date.

Reason: This part of the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and is a temporary expedient only.

2. Approved plans (2E10) 01, 4156/05 A.

Summary of Reasons for Decision

(221611FP.MP)

1.0 Background:

1.1 Members may recall that planning permission was granted by the Development Control committee meeting on 20 th July 2011, under LPA reference 3/11/0544/FP for the re-surfacing of the existing car park at Page 77 3/11/2216/FP

Grange Paddocks, a temporary car park, new foot bridge beside vehicle bridge; pedestrian and cycle path alongside the River Stort with link to Grange Paddocks; links to existing bridges and installation of lampposts along the route from Rye Street to Castle Gardens. That development has now started to be implemented and the re-surfacing of the Grange Paddocks car park has now been completed.

1.2 Members will note that, within the above permission, a temporary car park was granted planning permission. The purpose of that temporary car park was to ensure that appropriate levels of parking were provided during the re-surfacing works to the existing car park. A condition was attached within that permission requiring the cessation of that temporary car park within one month of the completion of the resurfacing works, and the reinstatement of the land. This application seeks an extension of the use of the temporary car park until 01 April 2012.

1.3 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract. Grange Paddocks is the Council’s leisure centre in Bishop’s Stortford. It comprises a swimming pool, gym and studio within the main building, sports pitches, two large surface car parks and ancillary facilities. The site is accessed over the River Stort from Rye Street by a bridge. The temporary car park is located to the north of the existing leisure complex and parking area. It is rectangular in shape and has some 126 parking spaces.

1.4 The site lies within a green finger, an area of open land extending northwards from the town centre, bounded by the railway line to the east and Rye Street to the west, which is designated Green Belt. There is a significant amount of existing landscaping and an existing unmade footpath which runs along the River Stort from the skate park to the edge of the playing fields. Residential properties lie to the west of the River Stort and are separated from the site by the River Stort and landscaping. To the east, beyond the playing fields and the railway line are more residential properties.

2.0 Site History:

2.1 In 2000 outline planning permission was refused under LPA Ref: 3/00/1176/OP for the construction of an extension to the existing pool and gym building together with the provision of all weather sports pitches (2no.), floodlighting and extended car parking facilities.

2.2 In 2002 an amended scheme, which did not include the all weather pitches or floodlighting, was granted under LPA Ref: 3/01/2284/OP for the erection of an extension to the existing pool and gym building along Page 78 3/11/2216/FP

with additional car parking. This scheme was not implemented.

2.3 In 2009 planning permission was granted under LPA Ref: 3/08/2090/FP for extensions to Grange Paddocks in the form of a single storey link extension and first floor extension over the existing ground floor changing room and gym area to extend and improve the facilities available.

2.4 The only other relevant planning permission is that mentioned above, LPA reference 3/11/0544/FP which granted planning permission for re- surfacing of the existing car park at Grange Paddocks, temporary car park, new foot bridge beside vehicle bridge; pedestrian and cycle path alongside the River Stort with link to Grange Paddocks; links to existing bridges and installation of lampposts along the route from Rye Street to Castle Gardens.

3.0 Consultation Responses:

3.1 No comments have been received from any statutory consultees.

4.0 Town Council Representations:

4.1 Bishop’s Stortford Town Council comment that the application will result in the loss of a recreation area and Green Belt land.

5.0 Other Representations:

5.1 The application has been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.

5.2 Two letters of representation have been received. One letter seeks clarification that this will be a temporary expedient only, the other advising that the recreational area has become muddy as a result of the temporary car park.

6.0 Policy:

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

GBC1 Appropriate Development in the Green Belt ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping ENV3 Planning Out Crime- New Development ENV16 Protected Species Page 79 3/11/2216/FP

ENV19 Development in Areas Liable to Flood ENV23 Light Pollution and Floodlighting LRC1 Sports and recreation Facilities LRC5 Countryside Recreation BH1 Archaeology and New Development BH2 Archaeological Evaluations and Assessments BH3 Archaeological Conditions and Agreements BH6 New Developments in Conservation Areas

7.0 Considerations:

7.1 The main planning consideration in respect of this application is whether the extended use of the land as a temporary car park is acceptable.

7.2 The site lies within the Green Belt wherein there is a presumption against inappropriate development. Policy GBC1 of the Local Plan does set out some exceptions to this presumption – however the provision of a temporary car park does not fall within any such exception and represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The Council must therefore consider whether there are any other material planning considerations to which such weight can be attached that they clearly outweigh any harm to the green belt and constitute the very special circumstances that warrant a departure from Green Belt policy in this case.

7.3 Furthermore, the site is located within an area designated for sport and recreational facilities – policy LRC1 of the Local Plan sets out that proposals which result in the loss of public recreation and open space will be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the facility is no longer needed and that suitable alternative facilities are provided for. The Council must therefore consider whether the requirements of that policy will be met or whether there are any material considerations to outweigh the presumption against the loss of recreational land.

7.4 The applicant sets out that the temporary car park has only been used at weekends and provides car parking facilities for the football teams which use the site on Saturdays and Sundays. This, the applicant indicates, has provided relief to the nearby residential streets to the west of the application site which, during a Saturday and Sunday often suffer from congestion from people parking on those streets to use the playing fields.

7.5 The applicant indicates that the Council is currently consulting on a residents parking scheme for this area (known as the “Chantry” scheme), which has received strong public support. An Order to implement the scheme will be published and it is hoped to implement the scheme from Page 80 3/11/2216/FP

the 02 April 2012. It is envisaged that the parking scheme will provide continued relief to those residential streets from people using those areas for parking for the leisure centre and recreation playing fields.

7.6 In accordance with the above considerations there are two matters which must be balanced against the inappropriateness of the use of the land for parking in the Green Belt and the loss of recreation land. Firstly, that the applicant seeks an extension of the use of the land as a car park for a temporary period only. This extends the use of that area until April, at which time a planning condition can be imposed requiring the land to be reinstated to its previous former condition. Secondly, that the proposal will add continued relief to nearby residential streets until a residents parking scheme is implemented to restrict on-street parking within those areas.

7.7 Having regard to those considerations, Officers are of the opinion that special circumstances do arise in this case which clearly outweigh any harm to the green belt by allowing the continued, temporary use of the land as a car park until the end of April. The proposal does result in the loss of playing field provision and an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt – however this will be for a temporary period only, after which time the land will be reinstated. In accordance with those considerations, the harm associated with the development will be temporary and there will be no long lasting impact on the openness or rural character of the Green Belt or the loss of playing field provision. Furthermore, it should also be noted that the temporary grant of permission does not convey any indication that a permanent car park would be viewed favourably in this location.

8.0 Conclusion:

8.1 Having regard to the above considerations it is considered that the proposed variation of the planning condition attached to LPA reference 3/11/0544/FP is acceptable and Officers therefore recommended that, subject to the conditions set out at the head of this report, planning permission should be granted.

Page 81 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 82 Grange

7 3 1

Wickam Hulver

Cottage

3 2

1 2

2 8

9 1 2 2 1

1 4 a

7 0 8

2 1 1 1

7 14 1 a 7 2 1

5 Whitehall Leys 2

1 1

7 1

31 4

1 5

9 1

1 3 Parsonage Mill

1 1

2 1 13 123

1 5 2

2 t

4 1 o u 1 1 t 1 o 1 C

e r 8 e 1 1 r F

9 2 9 1

1 2 4

0 1 SITE

1 0

7 6

1 7

4 7

6 6

t 1 6

1 9

2 1

6 1

7 4

0 6 1 4

1a 11 21 The Lodge

2 1

1 4 2

138

3 6 8

1 96

9 7

4 2

50 1 7

6 124 8

8 6 4

0 5

6 8

4 8

110 Donabate Fairbank House 5 9 Highlands 6 82 The Heights

3 8

1 6

Horstan

3 6

6 Scolt 9 3 6 Glencoe 5 Grange Paddocks Swimming Hitherlindsey 1 Pool 6 9 1 9 2 4

9 0 5 9a 4 9

Hamworthy b

1 9 1 2

2 Denny Quentins Brickfield Court 7

3 3 8 0

Sunnyside

1 4 1 Cranbourne 28

House

2 2

2 9 2 7

1 1 3 1

Morven 3 1

2 4 0

Minehead 2 1 1 7

19 7 2

4 8

2 4

5 2

7 The 1

8 Shires The Elms

Pennington

Struan 2 26

1 6

4 2

3 3

2 3

6 a 4

6 6

a 3

3 4 3

1 3

7 c

7 3

1 1 6

3 5

1 3

Greenmantle

7 3

16 2

5 3

2 1b 1a

5 9 3

7 3 2

15 2 Lernham 16 Hall 1

7 2 2

Rodings 2 7 3

2 5 2 9

b 3

7 1

9 3

47 0

b 9

a 9 1

1 1

1 0 5 37

4 7

9 9 3 1

1 7

3 14 Works 1

8 2 7

7 4

5 2 2

8 PH

3 Garage 3

0 6 5 2 2 8 6 a 3 2 2

6 5

a 7

3 2 3 9

6 3 2 2 6 4 a

1 3 2

2 3

0 1 2 2 0 16

1 Northgate 1

2 8

Place Farley

7 1 6

a a

2 6

9 6 a

1 9 6

3 1 0 a 2 1 6

27a

b 5 9 2 7 1 Co 8 ppe 8

rfield 5 3 1

2 10

2 a

9 8

9 9 4 2

1 c 1

a Monkhams 1 8 Chantry

o t

1 2 Mount a

1 8 4

11 a

Cloisters 2

2 4 The Monks' Northgate Youth Centre Walk

Priory 7

1 2

1 2 5

1 13

1 4

1 3 1

1 5 to 8 46 3 0

7a 3

1 7b The Chantry 7

C 6 o n

f 1

e 8

r o

C 0

4 o

o u

t 4 r 7 t

a 1 10

0 5

20 12 3

3 3

4 21 YMCA

1 Y 1 s a on rd 5 ats 0 W

4 18 1 2

3 4

o 2

b 1 Water House 22

to 1

20 3

6 9 36 6 B 29c PH

6 9 2 2

9 a

4 4

2 Church 1

6 2

1 1

a 6

5 5

5 2 1 30 2 5

1 3 9

9 4 c

4 5 2

3 1

2 1 5 The Vicarage

1 b 2 0

5 6

36 2

7 El 1

Sub Sta Hall 2 2

1 5

1 Guild 7 2

5 House

3 The 4

2 1 Old 8

4 Barn 1

Bank 3

9 0 5

3 2

3 9 7 2 S h

1 o

K p in 4 Sworders

g s 1

S 1

5 tre B

e s 3 o

1 1 t w Yard

e e t M 6

l o 1 3 w 1

7 Bank 5

4 1

3 7

1 7 3

1 2

4 3 1 1 6 8 0 9 1 1 0

2 4

8 0

9 2 7 4

2 1 4

4 6 4 1 1

1 1 1 4

f e f

O u

i o 9

c H

s u

n o 3 Bank 1 o 1 2 C t

g 7

a 0 1 h 1 1 4 2

C 1

C 5 P The 6

t Bank

o 3 Linhay 1 0 Club

P P

The o il 8 c M 4 Coach e 0 6 4 a 5 1 6 S 6 g 13 House i t 11 s a 9 t t PH r oi a The George n t All Saints' Church e 7 s ' Hotel 2 C 3 o 5 u Shelter r 2 t 4 1 8 6

1 0

4 35

1 2 3 PH 6

T Castle Cottage

h 2 0

2 e 9 3 1

C 37 38

o The a u 5 1 1 r 39 t y Old 1 a 3

2 r 5

d 4

2 0

Barn

7 PH 2 o t Ly ch 5 Ga 6 te 18 5 6 1 o 2 t 8

a 0 Corn

3 9 2 1

Exchange 7 20 7 20a 3

4 0 2 3 4 7 o 9 Cr t 5 1 own House 2 13 8 1 9 5 1 to 7

3 2 2 4 2

2 3 6

e This copy has been produced specifically for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528 Address: Land Adjacent to River Stort - East Side, Grange Paddocks, East Herts Council Wallfields Rye Street, Bishops Stortford, HERTS, CM23 2HH Pegs Lane Reference: 3/11/2216/FP Hertford SG13 8EQ Scale: 1:5000 Tel: 01279 655261 O.S Sheet: TL4821NE & TL4822SE Date of Print: 7 February 2012 Page 83 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 84 Agenda Item 5f 5f 3/11/1641/FP – Erection of 2 no Market Houses and 1 No live/work unit (amended scheme) at 279 - 280 Hertingfordbury Road, Hertingfordbury, SG14 2LQ for Mrs Shepherd

Date of Receipt: 16.09.11 Type: Full – Minor

Parish: HERTFORD

Ward: HERTFORD – CASTLE

RECOMMENDATION:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Time limit (1T12)

2. Approved plans (2E10) 586 08A, 586 15, 586 16, 586 17, 586 18.

3. Samples of materials (2E12)

4. New doors and windows (2E34).

5. Sample Brickwork Panel (2E35).

6. All rain water goods shall be in black painted cast iron or such metals as may otherwise be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the historic and architectural character of the Hertingfordbury Conservation Area and in accordance with adopted local plan policy BH6 and national guidance in PPS5 “Planning for the Historic Environment”.

7. Provision and retention of parking (3V23)

8. Landscaping Design Proposals (4P12) a, b, h, I, k. Add “The proposals shall include the works to the highways verge in front of new units one and two”

9. Landscape Works Implementation (4P13)

10. Withdrawal of permitted development Part 2 Class A (2E21) Fences etc.

11. Prior to the first occupation of the units hereby permitted the works of repair to the listed building No 279, and the landscaped enhancement of its setting, shall be completed in accordance with an approved schedule of repairs that shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local Page 85 3/11/1641/FP

planning authority and the approved landscape proposals approved by condition 8.

Reason : Having regard to the special justification for the approved development contrary to local plan policy GBC1 and national planning guidance for Green Belts in PPG2.

12. Live/work unit (5U14)

Directives:

1. Other legislation (01OL)

2. Bats (32BA)

3. The applicant is advised that in order to comply with this permission it may be necessary for the developer of the site to enter into an agreement with Hertfordshire County Council as Highway Authority under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the satisfactory completion of the access and associated road improvements. The applicant is advised to contact the Eastern Herts Highways Area Office, Hertford House, Meadway Corporate Centre, Rutherford Close, Stevenage SG1 3HL (Telephone 01438 757880) to obtain the requirements on the procedure to enter into the necessary agreement with the highway authority prior to commencement of development

4. In view of the close proximity of the structures to the public highway the applicant is advised that in order to comply with this permission it will be necessary for the developer of the site to contact the Hertfordshire County Council Bridge Manager in connection with the requirements of Department of Environment, Transport and Regions Department Standard BD 2/05: Technical Approval of Highway Structures. Further details can be obtained from Hertfordshire Highways, Highways and Transport Asset Management Unit, Highways House, 41 - 45 Broadwater Road, Welwyn Garden City, Herts AL7 3AX”

5. The applicant is advised that the storage of materials associated with this development should take place within the site and not extend into within the public highway without authorisation from the highway authority, Hertfordshire County Council. If necessary further details can be obtained from the Eastern Herts Highways Area Office, Hertford House, Meadway Corporate Centre, Rutherford Close, Stevenage SG1 3HL (Telephone 01438 757800).

Page 86 3/11/1641/FP

Summary of Reasons for Decision

The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (East of England Plan May 2008, Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the saved policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular policies GBC1, HSG8, OSV3, ENV1 and BH6 and Planning Policy Guidance 2 “Green Belts” and Planning Policy Statements 5 – Planning and the Historic Environment. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies and the other material considerations relevant in this case is that permission should be granted.

(164111FP.TH)

1.0 Background:

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract. It was once a builder’s yard and alehouse and the combined site was owned and run as an outlet for agricultural and motor parts since the 1950’s by Mr Shepherd until his death in 2010.

1.2 The site is located on the south side of Hertingfordbury village within the Hertingfordbury Conservation Area and also within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Although it is in the built up area of the village, Hertingfordbury is identified as a Category 3 village wherein Green Belt policy restrictions apply.

1.3 The site is at the western entrance into the village and lies adjacent to a listed building 279 Hertingfordbury Road which has been subject of related proposals for single and two storey rear extensions. These extensions and alterations have now been approved (Ref: 3/11/1643/FP and 3/11/1644/LB).

1.4 The site lies slightly above the road level which is in a cutting at this point. Houses opposite to the north are on higher ground and further along is the Prince of Wales PH with its frontage car park. The land slopes up from the road to the back where it lies adjacent to the allotments gardens. Access to these allotments and a small car parking area for its users and the village are to the west side of the site.

2.0 Site History:

2.1 There is no recent planning history to the site. In 1978 a lawful use certificate was refused and dismissed at appeal. The Inspector Page 87 3/11/1641/FP

concluded that the site was used for wholesale warehouse purposes in connection with motor vehicle, engineering and agricultural and industrial purposes.

2.2 Application and consent has been granted already (Ref: 3/11/1640/LC) for the demolition of existing retail and storage buildings at the site. An application (Ref: 3/11/1642/FP) for the construction of 5 no. market houses, which was submitted jointly with the current application, remains undetermined pending the outcome of this now amended application.

2.3 The current proposal is the outcome of further negotiation and has reduced the proposed development the subject of this application to a 2 dwelling and one live work unit scheme from the original 4 dwellings and a live / work unit.

3.0 Consultation Responses:

3.1 Thames Water advise of developer responsibilities and requirements for drainage approvals.

3.2 County Highways consider the application for redevelopment of a disused engineering works remains acceptable in a highways context. Traffic generation will not differ significantly compared to the potential of the existing site. Car parking and turning space are provided. They recommend conditions to ensure the completion of junction and access arrangements, details of the highways verge to the front of the site, the use of bound vehicle surfaces and measures to avoid dust, mud being deposited on the highway.

3.3 The County Archaeologist advises the development is unlikely to have an impact upon significant heritage assets

3.4 The Conservation Officer recommended refusal to the original scheme for 4 market houses and a live work unit and the 5 market house proposals. This scheme was considered harmful to the setting of the listed building and the Conservation Area. The Conservation officer is supportive of this amended and reduced proposal scheme. It is considered that the new unit 3 at the rear of the listed building 279 will not be too dominant in height and scale as its roof eaves will now be level with the ridge line of No 279 Hertingfordbury Road and this unit is well set back providing much improved garden amenity space for the listed building.

3.5 She comments that the existing small scale industrial buildings are of low Page 88 3/11/1641/FP

key visual impact and have a neutral impact on the Conservation Area but also that they are of limited interest or potential to convert and there is no objection to their demolition.

3.6 The water colour visualisations are especially helpful in illustrating the juxtaposition of old and new and she is now happy to support the revised design.

3.7 Herts Biological Records Centre note the bat surveys that have been carried out and the high potential of No 279 for bats although the outbuildings were assessed as being unsuitable. They recommend demolition works proceed with caution and the removal of weatherboarding and roof tiles proceed by hand. In the event of bats being found work must stop immediately and ecological advice taken on how to proceed

4.0 Town Council Representations:

4.1 Hertford Town Council has no objection to the development.

5.0 Other Representations:

5.1 Following receipt of the amended plans, a further round of consultation was carried out.

5.2 A resident of St Mary’s Lane objects to the application arguing that she has had a bungalow refused and other residents cannot get anything built in the village so this requires an explanation. She objects that the proposal would generate more traffic onto the Hertingfordbury Road. She sets out a precedent argument anticipating and expecting other permissions for development if permission is granted for these proposals.

6.0 Policy:

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

SD1 Making Development More Sustainable SD2 Settlement Hierarchy HSG1 Assessment of Sites not Allocated in this Plan HSG3 Affordable housing HSG4 Affordable housing Criteria HSG5 Rural Exceptions Affordable Housing Page 89 3/11/1641/FP

GBC1 Green Belts TR7 Car Parking - Standards EDE2 Loss of Employment Sites EDE7 Live/work units ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping ENV9 Withdrawal of Domestic Permitted Development Rights ENV16 Protected Species BH6 New development in Conservation Areas OSV3 Category 3 Villages

6.2 In addition, the following National policy guidance is relevant:-

Planning Policy Guidance 1, Delivering Sustainable Development, Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment

7.0 Considerations:

7.1 The application site is within the village of Hertingfordbury which is designated as a Category 3 village in the adopted Local Plan. Within such villages there is no policy allowance for infilling development and as the village is in the Metropolitan Green Belt the general policy restrictions continue to apply.

7.2 Any proposal for new residential development is therefore contrary to local plan policy GBC1 as well as national guidance in PPG2 Green Belts and amounts to inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

7.3 The main issue to consider in the determination of this application is therefore whether, taking all the material issues into account, weight can be assigned to positive impacts such that the harm in green belt terms and any other harm, is clearly outweighed. If that is the case then very special circumstances are demonstrated and planning permission can be granted.

Other Harm

7.4 It is necessary first then to consider whether there is any other harm in addition to the green belt harm. The potential for this is considered below.

7.5 Employment; With regards to the employment consideration, local plan policies will generally require a retention of employment use of even non Page 90 3/11/1641/FP

allocated employment sites subject to the criteria of Policy EDE2. In this case the site has been retained in the original family ownership and has not been fully marketed to see if any interest would be shown in the site for employment use. The existing buildings are of limited potential for reuse purposes and new build employment space would itself be contrary to Green Belt policy. There appears to be no local support for employment use as indicated by this application, and infact a concern is raised by the Parish Council that employment might continue at the site.

7.6 Therefore although the applicant has not marketed the site in accordance with EDE2 (a), given the potential for planning gains by a good quality redevelopment of the site and because of the harm that continued employment use itself may cause, it is concluded that the lack of employment reuse of the site should not be considered as additional harm.

7.7 Housing: A wholly affordable housing scheme would be a development that would accord with rural exceptions policy HSG5 and GBC1 for Category 3 villages in the Green Belt. At pre-application stage the question of whether affordable housing was possible at the site was examined but was not supported by the Council’s Housing Team. Its view is that affordable housing provision to serve local needs would be better located in nearby Hertford. The applicants have also implied the need to raise the value of the site to enable the repair of the main listed house (at 279 Hertingfordbury Road). Although this has not been tested by detailed submissions it is clear that requiring affordable housing provision would impact further on the value of the scheme. Some harm must be assigned to the residential development in this location with the lack of affordable provision, but this is considered to be limited.

Benefits of development

7.8 Given that the development, by definition, is harmful and other harm has been identified by virtue of the lack of any affordable housing provision, it is necessary to consider whether these matters are outweighed by other issues. These are considered below.

7.9 Design and layout: In general, officers have accepted that given the number of quite poor and vacant buildings at the site there is scope to enhance both the openness of the Green Belt and the setting of the listed buildings by their removal. Existing buildings at the rear of No 279 are poor and physically impinge on its setting leaving it little rear garden. The applicants argue that development enables the repair of No 279. It is unproven however that simply demolishing the existing buildings to Page 91 3/11/1641/FP

provide better space for No 279 would not itself be a commercial proposition if the site were marketed for this. In other words, improvements could be secured to that property solely by demolition without the need for new build.

7.10 Officers have consistently questioned the scale of proposals for the site and the justification for the amount of development being proposed. Officers concerns have related to reducing the density to that which could demonstrably bring real additional benefits for the setting of the listed building, the openness of the Green Belt and the character of the Conservation Area. The design of the scheme has therefore undergone significant revision with the number of dwellings proposed being reduced by two since its first submission and now allowing for the improvement of the setting to the listed building and a greater openness to the site at its western end benefiting the Green Belt and the Conservation Area.

7.11 The proposed houses have been designed and scaled to carefully assimilate within the street scene. Units one and two, which front Hertingfordbury Road, are one and one and a half storeys in height respectively and feature traditional pitched tiled roofs with low roof eave lines and gable-ended bays. These are considered to respect the street scene and the setting of the neighbouring listed building.

7.12 Unit 3 has been subject of detailed design work and lowered into the ground to ensure it relates comfortably with its listed neighbour. Attractive in its own right it will not be much noticed from the main road and so although of two storeys in height it is not considered there is any adverse impact on its surroundings as a result.

7.13 The indicative boundary treatments at the site are primarily for hedge planting to secure an enhancement of the surroundings including the approach to the public allotments on the south side of the site. A planning condition for a full landscaping scheme is recommended to secure the details of this and the details of the front highways verge as required by County Highways.

7.14 Officers consider then that the proposed amended design would make a positive addition to the Hertingfordbury Road street scene. It would be of benefit to the Conservation Area, particularly with reference to the existing listed building. The redesign of the scheme has resulted in a much improved appearance to the proposed buildings, and one that relates much more clearly to the relative simplicity of many of the neighbouring properties.

Page 92 3/11/1641/FP

7.15 It is considered then that, notwithstanding the conflict with the principle of development in the green belt, the proposals are beneficial in terms of openness overall by virtue of the overall reduction in built form. They are also beneficial in relation to the setting of a listed building and to the character of the Conservation Area. That area is enhanced.

7.16 Parking and Amenity space: Car parking provision is placed to the rear within 7 landscaped parking bays. County Highways are happy with the provision and the layout reduces their prominence within the development. The access to the rear unit 3, which lies immediately to the rear of No 279 would be through the rear car parking area. Each of the units will also have access to reasonable and private garden spaces. I therefore consider that in its provision of parking and amenity spaces the development is acceptable. This is not given beneficial weight in this proposal but is acceptable.

7.17 Protected Species: the evidence of bats was more persuasive for the listed building than the outbuildings and the site subject of this particular application. A suitably worded directive is proposed so that applicants remain vigilant in the event of evidence being found later of protected species. Again, beneficial weight is not applied, but this matter is acceptably dealt with.

7.18 Neighbouring Amenity: The area is residential in character and the layout of dwellings will not overlook or otherwise result in any harm to the amenity of neighbours. The removal of the established use to an extent also secures the benefit for neighbours, the B1 use element of the live work unit is acceptable in a residential area and a condition is proposed to regulate this use. No objections have been received on this point and in my view the proposal will be acceptable in regard to neighbouring amenity.

8.0 Conclusion:

8.1 The proposed development involves 2 new dwellings and a live / work unit within the Green Belt contrary to the general policy restraint of Policy GBC1. The development is inappropriate in the green belt and must be, by definition, harmful. Some additional harm is considered to be caused by the lack of provision of affordable housing as a part of the proposals. However, as a result of the proposals, I believe there will be positive benefits for the setting of the existing listed building, the openness of the Green Belt as well as the appearance of the site and the Hertingfordbury Conservation Area.

Page 93 3/11/1641/FP

8.2 The lack of reprovision of employment use of the buildings, or the redevelopment of the site for employment uses, is not given harmful weight because of the impact this may have. Indeed, the removal of the potential for employment use, other than the live work element, is considered to be beneficial.

8.3 The only objection made by a third party to the proposal is that the Council is being inconsistent in the application of policy in the village. However these proposals as negotiated are considered to provide benefits to justify a departure from Green Belt policy. The green belt harm is lessened as the impact is in fact greater openness. That and the other modest harm is considered to be outweighed by the benefits of the proposals. Each site and set of circumstances must be taken on its own merits. While it may be viable for the site to secure these benefits with a lesser amount of development, in planning terms the gains are sufficient to clearly override the harm caused by its inappropriateness in Green Belt terms.

8.4 For these reasons it is considered that there are “very special circumstances” to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Subject to the conditions outlined at the head of this report, it is recommended that planning permission be granted for the proposed development.

Page 94 6 5

7 26 1

8 1

3 1

2 2

6 15

3 2

274

Baynards Hill 240 242

6 Prince of 4

4 250 2 260 25 Wales

(PH)

2 7 7

2 7 9

Garth

2 8

0 House

Stoney Field

SITE Briar Cottage

Brook Field

Edgefield House

Saffrons

East Herts Council Address: 280 Hertingfordbury Road, Hertingfordbury, Herts, SG14 2LQ Wallfields Reference: 3/11/1641/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:1250 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL3011 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 13 February 2012 Page 95 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 96 Agenda Item 5g 5g 3/11/1932/FP - Construction of a replacement barn with alteration to the vehicle access to the barn yard at The Gage, Bucks Alley, Little Berkhamsted Hertford SG13 8LR for Mr David Carr

Date of Receipt: 25.11.11 Type: Full – Minor

Parish: LITTLE BERKHAMSTED

Ward: HERTFORD – RURAL SOUTH

RECOMMENDATION:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Three year time limit (1T12)

2. Approved plans (2E10) Plan Ref: 1, Plan No 1, 13828-PL and 13838-SU

3. Samples of materials (2E12)

4. Prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted, the modified vehicle access shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and surfaced in bituminous material for 1.0m into the site, measured from the highway boundary and arrangements shall be made for surface water from the site to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge to the highway.

Reason: To ensure the access is constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority to avoid the carriage of material or surface water into the adjacent highway in accordance with policy ENV21 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

5. The use of the barn hereby permitted shall be restricted solely to agricultural storage; the storage of landscape maintenance equipment or for private domestic storage and for no other purpose whatsoever without the prior consent in writing of the local planning authority.

Reason: To meet the particular needs of the applicant and to ensure that no alternative use is made of the premises that would be detrimental to the Green Belt in accordance with policies GBC1 and ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Directive:

1. Other legislation 01OL

Page 97 3/11/1932/FP

Summary of Reasons for Decision

(193211FP.SD)

1.0 Background:

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract. It is situated on the northern side of Bucks Alley within the Metropolitan Green Belt in an isolated rural location surrounded by open fields and woodland. It is bounded to the north east and south by agricultural fields, to the west at a distance are the residential dwellings on Bucks Alley, beyond this to the south west is the village of Little Berkhamsted.

1.2 The site was once a working farm, but is now mainly in residential use according to the submitted Planning Statement. Some of the outbuildings at the site are used for storage purposes and a former barn at the site, destroyed by fire damage was, until then, rented by a Landscape gardener to store landscape gardening and agricultural equipment for use both on this site and elsewhere.

1.3 The application proposes the replacement of the destroyed barn with a new building which would cover the same floor area and would be of a similar height, constructed with a steel truss roof, with steel corrugated cladding sheet for the roof, with a brick plinth and cladding to the elevations.

1.4 The front brick wall on the east side of the entrance would be demolished and the vehicle entrance to the barn enlarged from 3.35m to 4.80m to provide better site access from the adjacent rural lane for agricultural equipment. The front elevation of the new barn, facing the lane would be constructed in steel cladding with matching gates attached to the existing boundary wall.

1.5 The building is intended, as before, to be used for the storage of landscape gardening and agricultural equipment, and for private domestic storage. Page 98 3/11/1932/FP

2.0 Site History:

2.1 There is no previous planning history for the site. It is presumed that the barns have been used for agricultural purposes, when the site was a working farm. The site is now largely in residential use and the various outbuildings/ barns used for domestic storage purposes and the landscape gardening business referred to.

3.0 Consultation Responses:

3.1 The Council’s Conservation Officer comments that the overall setting of the heritage assets, of the Grade II listed farmhouse and the main curtilage listed barn to the east will be improved by the removal of the previous structures which were of no special interest, of poor construction and appearance, out of keeping with the character of the adjacent heritage assets. The replacement structure is considered to relate well to the heritage asset.

3.2 County Highways does not wish to restrict the grant of permission subject to the inclusion of conditions for details of the surfacing of the modified vehicle access, and arrangements for surface water drainage from the site to be intercepted and disposed of separately to prevent discharge into the highway. In a highway context the proposal is not significant accessed from a lightly trafficked rural carriageway, and the widening of the access provides for easier access for vehicles. Traffic generation is unlikely to increase.

4.0 Parish Council Representations:

4.1 Little Berkhamsted Parish Council have no objections to the proposed application.

5.0 Other Representations:

5.1 The applications have been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.

5.2 No letters of representation have been received.

6.0 Policy:

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

Page 99 3/11/1932/FP

GBC1 Green Belt ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping

6.2 In addition, the following National policy guidance is relevant:- Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment

7.0 Considerations:

7.1 The main determining issue in this case relates to whether the proposal is appropriate development within the Green belt, where the aims and objectives of policy are placed firmly on growth restraint. A number of other issues need to be considered, as set out below. The overall judgement that needs to be made is whether harm to the green belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by the weight that can be assigned to these other matters.

Green Belt

7.2 Within the Green Belt, under the provisions of policy GBC1, permission will not normally be given for the construction of new buildings or changes of use, other than for those listed under the policy as appropriate development. The proposal does not fall within any of these exception categories and constitutes “inappropriate” development within the Metropolitan Green Belt. It therefore needs to be considered whether there are any other material planning considerations to which such weight can be attached as to clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt and any other harm and thereby constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ required to justify a departure from Green Belt policy.

Other issues

7.3 Design and appearance: The proposed replacement barn would be constructed in materials and external finish commensurate with an agricultural barn in a rural locality. The barn will be of a functional design and appearance with brick plinth base and steel cladding to the exterior elevations. In your Officer’s view the form, design and scale of the new barn is similar to the previous structure, but with an improved roof structure that compliments and relates sympathetically to the adjacent main barn and the group of original farm buildings. The new barn will assimilate easily into the farmstead group, on the original footprint and therefore would not be likely to have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the rural locality or distance views of the site. It will cause no harm in this respect. Page 100 3/11/1932/FP

7.4 Access: The alteration to the front vehicle access is quite minor and will, as widened, facilitate better access by vehicles to the yard and barn. Highways officers have no objection to the proposed replacement barn or widened access subject to conditions. Officers consider the conditions relating to surface water management and hard surfaces to be reasonable and necessary as attached to the recommendation. No harm is caused.

7.5 Neighbour amenity: Officers are satisfied that given the location of the replacement barn in relation to neighbouring residential properties, the nearest of which is some 200m away, the proposed development will not unduly impact upon any neighbouring properties in terms of loss of privacy, outlook or general amenity.

7.6 Setting of heritage assets: The proposed replacement barn would be of a slightly altered roof profile to the previous barn which provided three rather awkward and intrusive roof forms. The officers consider that the proposed roof form is of a simple functional design and overall the setting of the heritage assets on the site (the listed farmhouse and curtilage listed barn) will be improved by the replacement structure. To safeguard the quality of the proposed external cladding of the replacement barn which would be in proximity to the weatherboard curtilage listed barn, a condition requiring further details of the external cladding material is recommended.

7.7 Existing use: As indicated above, the former building at the site has been in use partially for a landscape gardening business and for domestic purposes. There is no recorded planning history so it is anticipated that these uses have commenced without the benefit of planning permission. They may have been in place for such a period of time that they are now immune from planning control and, in any event, limited commercial reuse of redundant agricultural buildings is supported by the Councils planning policies. A new building will enable this commercial use to continue and the limited economic benefit that it brings is assigned positive weight.

Summary

7.8 In summary then it is considered that the development is inappropriate in green belt terms. In terms of other harm, this is considered to be very limited, or none at all. With regard to the weight that can be assigned to the positive aspects of the proposal, the new build proposed is the same scale as that which has been demolished and the design is improved. In this respect it has no greater impact on the openness of the green belt than the previous building did. It is an improvement in design terms, Page 101 3/11/1932/FP

improves the setting of the heritage asset and provides a modest element of economic development. Given the modest harm in this case, it is considered that weight can be assigned to positive factors such that very special circumstances can be considered to be demonstrated in this case.

8.0 Conclusion:

8.1 It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined at the start of this report.

Page 102 6

Wood Cottage

Berkhamsted Monument

Gage Farm Cottage

The Wall House

The Old Manor Cottage

Garden Cottage

SITE

The Gage

BBBUUU BBBUUUCCCKKK CCCKKKSSS SSS A AALLL LLLLLLEEE EEEYYY

East Herts Council Address: The Gage, Bucks Alley, Little Berkhamsted, SG13 8LR Wallfields Reference: 3/11/1932/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:2500 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL2907 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 7 February 2012 Page 103 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 104 Agenda Item 5h 5h 3/11/2156/FP - Erection of scout hut and associated external works at Rear of 14 – 21 Kecksy’s, Sawbridgeworth for 1st Sawbridgeworth Scout Group

Date of Receipt: 21.12.2011 Type: Full – Minor

Parish: SAWBRIDGEWORTH

Ward: SAWBRIDGEWORTH

RECOMMENDATION:

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

1. The proposed development of a Scout hut and associated external works represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Other harm is caused by the development by virtue of the noise and disturbance associated with the use of the site and the impact on the visual amenity of existing neighbouring residential properties to the west of the site. Whilst it is accepted that the building and use does result in social and community benefit, it is not considered that such weight can be assigned to these benefits such that the harm to the green belt and other harm is clearly outweighed. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies GBC1 and ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts.

(215611FP.SE)

1.0 Background:

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract.

1.2 This proposal is for the development of a Scout Hut and associated external works on land to the rear of 14 – 21 Kecksy’s, Sawbridgeworth. The land is currently open and has a gradient that slopes downwards from the properties at Kecksy’s eastwards towards the River Stort. The site forms the top part of an agricultural field that is bound to the north and south by mature hedging. To the southeast of the site lies allotments, and to the north lies further agricultural land. The access to the site is through a current opening sited between numbers 20/21 Kecksy’s and number 1 Reedings Way.

1.3 The proposed Scout Hut is of a simple gable design measuring 22 metres in length, 10.7 metres in width, 2.3 metres in height to the eaves, and 5.8 metres in height to the ridge. It is to be sited approximately 15 - 17 metres to the rear of the properties in Kecky’s but only some 4-5m Page 105 3/11/2156/FP

distant from their property boundaries. The proposal will involve the engineering of the land resulting in the excavation of approximately 1 metre depth of soil and the creation of a level slab.

1.4 The external works include the creation of a dropped kerb at the access to the estate road, the creation of an accessway, turning and parking facilities for 4 cars, 1 disabled space, 6 bicycles, and 1 bus space, together with the erection of boundary fencing.

2.0 Site History:

2.1 There is no planning history related to this site.

3.0 Consultation Responses:

3.1 County Highways does not wish to restrict the grant of permission subject to conditions relating to parking and access details; the construction of visibility splays; provision of wheel washing facilities; details of hardsurfacing materials; and the provision of cycle storage.

3.2 In considering the proposal Highways have commented that as the Scout group attracts children as young as 6 years old it is recommended that a footpath link is provided along the northern edge of the proposed access to the site, in the interest of pedestrian safety. It comments that a minimum access width of 4.1m should be provided in accordance with guidance in Manual for Streets and Roads in Hertfordshire. It states that although no information with regard to trip generation for the Scout Hut and use of the adjacent field has been submitted, the 210sqm Scout Hut is unlikely to generate a significant increase in vehicle trips. It comments that parents are also likely to drop off/pick up their children rather than park for a prolonged period, and that travel by sustainable modes such as walking and cycling should also be encouraged given the proximity of the site to local schools. In conclusion it comments that it has no grounds to raise and sustain an objection to planning permission being granted.

3.3 Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre has commented that it does not have any biological records – habitats or species – for the site. As a result, it concludes that there should not be any ecological constraints with regard to the proposed development.

4.0 Town Council Representations:

4.1 Sawbridgeworth Town Council has raised no objections to this proposal.

Page 106 3/11/2156/FP

5.0 Other Representations:

5.1 The application has been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.

5.2 18 letters of objection have been received (from 11 households) which raise the following matters:

• Impact on peace and tranquillity of the site; • Impact on wildlife; • Concern at how the volume of traffic associated with the development could be accommodated in what is already a congested area; • Impact on the Green Belt; • Lack of parking; • Impact on existing views; • Noise and disturbance from use; • The site is within a flood plain; • Impact of glare from lighting; • The existing scout hut could be updated; • Loss of sunlight to properties; • The appearance of the building is out of keeping with existing buildings in the immediate area; • Impact on access for emergency vehicles;

5.3 A petition signed by 31 people objecting to the proposal has also been received.

5.4 Two letters of support have been received, together with a petition signed by 64 people who support the need for a new Scout hut.

6.0 Policy:

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

GBC1 Green Belt ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping ENV24 Noise Generating Development TR7 Car Parking – Standards TR13 Cycling – Facilities Provision (Non-Residential)

Page 107 3/11/2156/FP

6.2 In addition, the following National policy guidance is relevant:-

PPG2 – Green Belts

7.0 Considerations:

7.1 This application site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt wherein policy GBC1 of the Local Plan sets out the types of development which are considered to be appropriate. The construction of new buildings on land falling within the Green Belt will be inappropriate unless it is of a type specified in the policy. The policy states that permission will not be given for inappropriate development.

7.2 The relevance ‘test’ in relation to this application is to consider whether the development is, by definition, ‘inappropriate development’, having regard to the exceptions in PPG2 and Policy GBC1, and whether there is any other harm caused by the development. If this is the case it must be assessed whether there are any other material considerations to which such weight can be attached that the identified harm is clearly outweighed. If that is the case ‘very special circumstances’ exist.

Impact on the Green Belt

7.3 A scout hut is not development which is deemed to be appropriate in the Green Belt, and the proposal is therefore considered to represent inappropriate development which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. The site is currently open and its character is very much that of a rural site. It is considered that the proposed Scout hut building, area of hardstanding and parking and the associated uses on the site would appear as an urban intrusion into the countryside and would harm the openness and rural character of this part of the Green Belt, contrary to PPG2 and policy GBC1. It is clearly harmful in green belt terms.

Other Harm

7.4 Paragraph 3.2 of PPG2 also requires that consideration is given to ‘any other harm’ which must also be considered in the case of this application. This is considered below.

7.5 Siting and appearance: The siting of the proposed development will clearly result in a change to the outlook which the occupants of nos. 14- 21 Kecky’s currently benefit from. However, in considering this impact regard must be had to the size of the proposed building and surrounding land levels. The building is proposed to be a maximum height of approximately 5.8 metres (2.3 metres to the eaves), and would be sited Page 108 3/11/2156/FP

between 15 and 17 metres from the rear elevation of the properties in Kecky’s. Furthermore, from the properties in Kecky’s the land falls from west to east, and as a consequence the land on which the new building is proposed to be constructed is approximately 3 metres lower than the ground floor level of the properties in Kecky’s.

7.6 Taking into account the above it is considered that whilst the proposed development would result in an impact on the outlook of the occupiers of those properties, this would be toward a simply designed building. The length of the building and its proximity will ensure that it does have some prominence in the current outlook from the properties. However, in some cases, the properties currently have limited rear enclosure, taking advantage of current open views to the east. If conventional enclosure were to be in place the impact of the new building would be less. It is concluded that modest weight can be assigned to the impact of the proposed on the outlook from the existing properties in harmful terms.

7.7 Activity: The statement provided by the Scout Group indicates that the group currently has 157 persons (boys and girls) and 26 adult leaders, and has plans to grow to over 200 young people. It is also stated that the Scout Hut will be used during late afternoons and evenings on weekdays and carry out outdoor activities during the summer months. It is not uncommon for Scout huts to be located within urban areas for reasons of accessibility and because they represent a community use. The introduction of such a level of activity in this location would result in a harmful impact on the amenity of the occupiers of nearby dwellings. It is not considered reasonable that conditions could be imposed on any grant of permission to restrict the use of the building and site such that the noise and disturbance created by the use would be at an acceptable level. This will result in some additional harm to nearby residents.

7.8 Access, parking and highway safety: The comments of County Highways are that it has no grounds to raise and sustain an objection to planning permission being granted. It comments that the proposed Scout hut is unlikely to generate a significant increase in vehicle trips, and that travel by sustainable modes such as walking and cycling should be encouraged. Furthermore, it comments that parents are also likely to drop off/pick up their children rather than park for a prolonged period. Whilst Officer’s acknowledge the concerns of local residents in respect of these issues, it is not considered that the traffic generation or parking associated with the use will be to such a degree that would result in significant implications for road safety or parking conditions.

Page 109 3/11/2156/FP

7.9 Having regard to the above considerations, it is the opinion of Officers that the proposed development would result in harm to the Green Belt and additional harm by virtue of the siting of the proposed building and the activity the use will create. It therefore falls to be considered whether there are any other matters to which such weight can be attached that the harmful impacts are clearly outweighed.

7.10 The Planning Statement accompanying this application sets out matters which the Applicant considers such weight should be given to. These can be summarised as follows:

• Need for the proposal; • Absence of suitable and available sites within the built-up area of Sawbridgeworth; • Urban fringe location of the proposal site; • Outdoor sport/recreation related; • Location and design of building.

7.11 The difficultly the Scout group has faced in finding alternative premises is well documented. The Group has been searching for new premises for the last 12 years. The existing Scout Hut in Springhall Lane is over 90 years old, and the Group have confirmed that the building is in a poor condition, and the continued use of the hut by the Group is in jeopardy due to the condition of the building. Planning permission was granted in 2005 for a new Scout hut to be constructed on a site in Bullfields (ref. 3/04/2378/FP), however this was not constructed due to the landowner withdrawing their consent. A further application was made in 2008 for the erection of a Scout Hut on part of the recreation ground at Vantorts Close (ref. 3/08/0830/FP) which was refused and dismissed on Appeal (reference APP/J1915/A/08/2085394).

7.12 The difficulty the Group has experienced in finding a suitable site within the built up area is acknowledged. It is evident from the letters of representation and petition received which support the application, that there is a need and demand for the Scout group. The need for new premises for the Group is important to the future success and existence of the Group. The benefits of the use in social and community terms have to be acknowledged as do the likelihood that the activity and visual impact will be caused on any alternative site which may be identified near to residential uses. It is also acknowledged that such a site must be preferred both for accessibility reasons and because of the location of the demand base for the use.

Page 110 3/11/2156/FP

8.0 Conclusion:

8.1 Having regard to the above considerations, it is clear that the proposed development of a Scout hut and associated external works represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt. It has a harmful impact on openness and, by definition, this is harmful. Additional harm is caused by virtue of the impact on the outlook of neighbouring residential uses and the activity that is associated with the use. It is considered that only limited weight should be applied to this additional harm.

8.2 In its favour, it is accepted that there is a need for a replacement Scout hut building. The use is accepted as a valuable social and community benefit. The users have attempted to identify a number of alternative locations where a building could be secured, without success to date. It is likely that, what ever location is identified, there will be issues of visual and activity impact given the desire to be located in or near to an urban area.

8.3 Ultimately it is considered that, on balance, in this case the clear green belt impact and the modest weight that can be assigned to additional harm, is not clearly outweighed by the beneficial impacts. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to policies GBC1 and ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts.

8.4 For this reason it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

Page 111 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 112 5 2

1 9 2

6 8

1 2 5

E E E

S S S

S S S 1

O O O 3

O O O

a 1 L L L 3 L L L

L L L

C C C

S S S

S S S ' ' ' S S S ' ' '

' ' ' 1

N N N 4

N N N

E E E

E E E E E E SSS E E E 'S'S'S E E E 'S'S'S

E E E ' ' '

U U U YYY 1

U U U YYY

1 SSS 4 Q Q Q SSS

Q Q Q 5 SSS Q Q Q KKK KKK CCC CCC EEE EEE KKK

1 KKK

7 6

NNOORRTTTHHFFFIIEIEELLL

RRTTTHHFFFIIEIEELLLDD R ROOAADD

0 1 8

3 1

Edens Mount

4 SITE 2

o t

6 8

0 2 1 1

4 6 1

1 3

0 2

8 1

YYY YYY AAA 2 AAA 2 WWW W W W

SSS SSS GGG GGG NNN INININ III DDD DDD EEE EEE

EEE EEE 2

RRR RRR 5

32 34 38

East Herts Council Address: Rear of, 14-21, Kecksy's, Sawbridgeworth, HERTS Wallfields Reference: 3/11/2156/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:1250 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL4815NE Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 7 February 2012 Page 113 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 114 Agenda Item 5i 5i 3/11/2110/FP – Conversion of garage with the addition of a first floor to create annexe with a single storey link to main dwelling and car port to side of garage conversion at Oakleighs, 1 Crossroads, Epping Green, Hertford, Hertfordshire, SG13 8NG for Mr and Mrs R and S Perry

Date of Receipt: 08.12.2011 Type: Full – Other

Parish: LITTLE BERKHAMPSTED

Ward: HERTFORD – RURAL SOUTH

RECOMMENDATION:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Time limit (1T121)

2. Approved plans (2E103); (10768-P001-A and 10768-S001)

3. Matching materials (2E134)

4. The building hereby permitted shall only be used for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and shall not be occupied as a separate dwelling or for any other purpose without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the Local Planning Authority retains control over any future development which may be inappropriate within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Directive:

1. Other legislation (01OL1)

Summary of Reasons for Decision

(211011FP.MC)

Page 115 3/11/2110/FP

1.0 Background:

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract. It is a semi- detached cottage located in the village of Epping Green in the south of the district. The cottage has been extended to the rear with a part single, part two-storey extension and to the side with a single-storey extension. A double garage was also approved for the dwelling. The site is located within the Green Belt.

1.2 The property lies on a roughly triangular plot of land with a frontage onto the road of approximately 75m. The house lies in the south-east corner of the site, slightly angled away from the road. The garage in turn is angled away from the house, with the flank elevation nearest the road roughly parallel to it. The garage is accessed by doors in the north-west wall.

1.3 The proposal is for the conversion of the garage into a residential annexe with the provision of first floor accommodation within the roof space. A car port with a single space would be added to the south-west wall of the garage. A single-storey extension would link the garage and house.

2.0 Site History:

2.1 The site formerly comprised a much smaller curtilage around the cottage, with the majority of the site being separate from it. The residential curtilage was subsequently extended to encompass the entire existing site.

2.2 The following applications relate to the part of the site previously separated from the residential cartilage:

• 287-55 – Widen access – Approved April 1955 • 740-56 – Agricultural cottage – Approved • 158-57 – Bungalow and garage – Approved March 1957 • 1368-62 – Residential development – Refused September 1962

2.3 The following applications relate to Oakleigh Cottage itself:

• 1153-75 – Two-storey rear extension and double garage – Approved March 1976 • 805-76 – Single-storey side extension – Approved September 1976

Page 116 3/11/2110/FP

3.0 Consultation Responses:

3.1 County Highways have no objection to the development as sufficient parking would be retained on site and traffic generation is unlikely to change.

4.0 Parish Council Representations:

4.1 Little Berkhampsted Parish Council has no comment on the application.

5.0 Other Representations:

5.1 The application has been advertised by way of site notice and neighbour notification.

5.2 No representations have been received as a result.

6.0 Policy:

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

GBC1 Green Belt ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV5 Extensions to Dwellings ENV6 Extensions to Dwellings – Criteria ENV8 Residential Annexes OSV3 Category 3 Villages

6.2 In addition, the following National policy guidance is relevant:-

Planning Policy Guidance 2 – Green Belts

7.0 Considerations:

7.1 The site lies within the Green Belt. The main considerations are: firstly, whether the extent of development proposed is appropriate in the Green Belt and if not, whether there are other considerations to which such weight can be given that they clearly outweigh any harm to the Green Belt and constitute ‘very special circumstances’ to justify inappropriate development. Secondly, whether the proposed annexe is considered to otherwise accord with the requirements of policy ENV8 and the other policies of the adopted Local Plan.

Page 117 3/11/2110/FP

Green Belt

7.2 Policies GBC1 and ENV5 of the Local Plan state that limited extensions to dwellings in the Green Belt will be acceptable in principle, and similar guidance is given in national PPG2.

7.3 The house had an original floor area of around 105m2. The subsequent extensions added a further 80m 2 (approximately). The proposed link extension would have a floor area of around 14m 2, and the converted garage/annexe would have a floor area of around 54m 2 and the car port would have a floor area of around 18m 2. The existing and proposed extensions and garage annexe would have a floor area of around 165m2, or around a 160% increase in floor area.

7.4 It is considered that this increase in size cannot be considered ‘limited’, in terms of the scale in relation to the size of the original building. Officers consider therefore that the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

7.5 It is however also necessary to consider whether, in this case, the proposed extension and linking of the house and garage would be harmful to the character and the openness of the Green Belt. The impact on the openness of the Green Belt from the proposed extensions would not in Officers opinion be material. The car port would be screened behind a high wall at the front of the property, and the link would be a modest addition to the property, substantially lower than either the house or garage. The overall character of the site would not be significantly altered by the development, and the general openness of the area would not be harmed by the development.

7.6 Although the extensions would represent a significant addition to the overall size of the property, the impact beyond the application site itself would be very limited.

Suitability of garage for conversion to annexe

7.7 The applicant indicates that the annexe is required to provide accommodation for an elderly relative. Policy ENV8 of the Local Plan states that permission may be granted for the conversion of an existing outbuilding to a residential annexe where:

a) The outbuilding is of a design and structure in keeping with the existing dwelling and locality b) The size of the outbuilding is compatible with the requirements of the annexe Page 118 3/11/2110/FP

c) The outbuilding is appropriately located in relation to the main dwelling d) Sufficient space to park vehicles for both parts of the dwelling, in accordance with adopted standards, is available, and appropriately located in design terms, within the cartilage.

7.8 The garage in this case is a substantial structure designed to house two cars with additional space within the roof. The steeply sloped roof matches that of Oakleigh Cottage, and the general design of the building is in keeping with the house. At present the roofspace is an open void, but the conversion proposes the creation of a first floor to serve as the bedroom. The development would not materially alter the appearance of the structure, although a portrait window and Juliet balcony would be added to the first floor of the north-west elevation, and the existing garage doors would be replaced with windows. This elevation does not directly face the road and is screened in part by the site boundary.

7.9 The garage is considered to be of an appropriate size (approximately 54m 2 proposed floor area) for conversion to a one-bed annexe. The ground floor would form the open plan kitchen and living room, with a bedroom and en-suite bathroom on the first floor.

7.10 The garage would be linked to the house by a modest extension. The annexe would be capable of separate, self-sufficient occupation but the relationship with the house would be appropriate in terms of proximity and the potential for affording care. Furthermore, the sharing of the garden area, parking and access would ensure that a good relationship is maintained between the dwelling and the annexe and that the use of the annex would remain dependent upon the existing dwelling.

7.11 Policy ENV8 expects there to be sufficient parking for both parts of the dwelling at the site. The site currently has a paved area at the front of the garage that is capable of accommodating 2 or 3 vehicles or providing on- site turning space, in addition to the proposed car port. These spaces would remain at the site despite the loss of the garage space.

7.12 Policy ENV8 also states that where permission is granted for an annexe, a condition may be imposed to ensure that the occupation of the annexe remains tied to the main dwelling. Such a condition forms part of the recommendation on this application.

7.13 In this instance it is considered by officers that the annexe would accord with Policy ENV8 to provide accommodation for a dependent relative within the curtilage of an existing dwelling house and it would not be detrimental to the surrounding area. Page 119 3/11/2110/FP

Other matters

7.14 The annexe would be located on the detached side of Oakleigh Cottage, more than fifteen metres from the boundary with the nearest property. The new first-floor window would be more than thirty metres from any neighbouring property. Officers consider therefore that there would be no material impact on neighbour amenities from the proposed development, in accordance with policies ENV1 and ENV6.

8.0 Conclusion:

8.1 The proposed annexe would be appropriately located in relation to the existing house, and be in keeping with the character and appearance of Oakleigh Cottage. It is considered that it would not conflict with the aims of Policy ENV8 to provide accommodation for dependent relatives.

8.2 The creation of the annexe would involve the conversion of an existing garage with the addition of a modest link extension and car port. Overall the development results in a cumulative amount of development that amounts to inappropriate development within the Green Belt. However, the development would have no material impact on the openness or rural character of the area and it is considered therefore that any harm to the Green Belt in this case would be minimal. It is also considered that the particular needs of the applicant, together with the appropriate design, size and siting of the development are material considerations which clearly outweigh any harm and thereby constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ required to justify the development in the Green Belt. It is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions at the head of this report.

Page 120 The Beehive

(PH)

Willow Tree Farm

The Old Post Office

Tile Cross North Cottage SITE

Little Well Cottage

Epping Green Farm Swallowfield Farm

Epping Green Stud Farm

Oakleighs

Jesmond Cottage

El Sub Sta

Ponsbourne Lodge Farm

Mulberry Lodge

East Herts Council Address: Oakleighs, 1-Crossroads, Epping Green, Hertford, SG13 8NG Wallfields Reference: 3/11/2110/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:2500 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL2906 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 26 January 2012 Page 121 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 122 Agenda Item 5j 5j 3/11/2185/FP – Conversion of car port to form residential annexe including raising of roof to create first floor accommodation at Bromley House, Bromley Lane, Wellpond Green, SG11 1NW for Mr and Mrs Thompson

Date of Receipt: 21.12.2011 Type: Full – Other

Parish: STANDON

Ward: THUNDRIDGE AND STANDON

RECOMMENDATION:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Three year time limit (1T121)

2. The residential annexe facility hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Bromley House.

Reason: To ensure the Local Planning Authority retains control over any future residential development and in accordance with Policy ENV8 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

3. Approved plans (2E102) (insert 10551-LP-001, 10551-P002, 10551-A1- S003)

Directive:

1. Other legislation (01OL1)

Summary of Reasons for Decision

The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (East of England Plan, May 2008, Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular policies GBC3, ENV1, ENV5, ENV6, ENV8 and TR7. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that permission should be granted.

(218511FP.MP)

1.0 Background:

1.1 The application site is situated within the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt along Bromley Lane, to the south of the settlement of Westland Page 123 3/11/2185/FP

Green as shown on the attached OS extract.

1.2 The application property is a large detached 2 ½ storey dwelling constructed in red brick with white fenestration. The property is set back from the road frontage and accessed via a gravel driveway. There are two outbuildings to the north of the property, a detached double car port, with a pyramid roof and dovecote, and a larger outbuilding which serves a double garage with a garden room and storage space. The property is situated within a large site with some soft landscaping to the western boundary which screens the development from the road frontage.

1.3 The proposal involves the conversion of the existing double car port into a residential annex. Combined with the proposal is an increase in the ridge height of the building by approximately 1metre. The proposed works would provide residential accommodation which would include 1 bedroom with ensuite at first floor and an open plan living room, kitchen and dining area at ground floor. The building is located eight metres to the north of the dwellinghouse.

2.0 Site History:

2.1 Planning permission was granted, within LPA reference 3/04/0229/FP, for a replacement dwelling and two outbuildings. That permission reflects the built form currently on site.

2.2 Planning permission has also recently been granted for a single storey rear extension within LPA reference 3/11/0665/FP. At the time of Officers site visit that development had not been implemented.

3.0 Consultation Responses:

3.1 Hertfordshire County Highways does not wish to restrict the grant of permission. Sufficient parking and turning areas are retained within the site and trip-generation for the proposed development is not likely to be significant – the Highways Authority therefore have no grounds to justify refusal of planning permission.

4.0 Parish Council Representations:

4.1 No comments have been received from Standon Parish Council.

5.0 Other Representations:

5.1 The application has been advertised by way of site notice and neighbour Page 124 3/11/2185/FP

notification.

5.2 No letters of representation have been received.

6.0 Policy:

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

GBC3 Appropriate Development in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV5 Extensions to Dwellings ENV6 Extensions to Dwellings – Criteria ENV8 Residential Annexes TR7 Car Parking – Standards

7.0 Considerations:

7.1 The determining issues in this case relate to Local Plan policy regarding the principle of development, the appropriateness of the residential annexe (policy ENV8), the impact of the proposed development on the character of the area and the building and parking issues.

Principle of development

7.2 The application site is situated within the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt, wherein permission will be given for limited extensions and alterations to dwellings provided an extension to a dwelling or the erection of outbuildings is of a scale and size that would either by itself, or cumulatively with other extensions, not disproportionately alter the size of the original dwelling nor intrude into the openness or rural qualities of the surrounding area, in accordance with Policies GBC3 and ENV5 of the Local Plan.

7.3 As indicated above, the main dwelling itself has benefited from a recent permission for a single storey rear extension. That is however the only extension that has been granted planning permission and the proposal in this application will only provide an additional 36 square metres of or so of additional floor area. Taking into account the limited floor area increase of the building and the single storey extensions granted to the existing dwelling Officers are of the opinion that the proposed extension represents a limited extension in accordance with policies GBC3 or ENV5 of the Local Plan.

Page 125 3/11/2185/FP

Residential annexes

7.4 With regards to the conversion and extension of the building to provide a residential annexe, Policy ENV8 permits the conversion of an existing outbuilding to a residential annexe or the provision of an annexe where the outbuilding is of a design and structure in keeping with the existing dwelling and locality; the size of the outbuilding is compatible with the requirements of the annexe; the outbuilding is appropriately located in relation to the main dwelling; and sufficient space to park vehicles for both parts of the dwelling is available and appropriately located within the curtilage of the site.

7.5 However, the proposals in this application involve more than the conversion of the existing outbuilding, what is proposed is a roof extension to the outbuilding to provide the annexe accommodation which therefore fails to meet criteria ENV8(II). The proposal therefore represents a departure from Policy ENV8 in that respect and it is for this reason that the application has been reported to the Development Control committee.

7.6 Despite not fully complying with policy ENV8, in terms of representing a complete conversion of an outbuilding, Officers consider that the annexe proposal in this application is sited in an appropriate location in relation to the main dwelling and would therefore be capable of being used as an integral part of the use of main dwelling on the site. Officers consider the proposed level of accommodation to be appropriate for an annex use. Taking this into account and with regard to the juxtaposition of the building with the dwelling house, Officers are of the opinion that the annexe will be used as an integral part of the main dwelling.

7.7 The sharing of the garden area, parking, access and the siting of the annexe with the dwelling, ensures that a good relationship is maintained between the dwelling and the annexe. Officers consider that the use of the annexe would remain dependent upon the main dwelling and a condition to require the use to be ancillary to the existing residential unit would be sufficient to control its use and prevent the annexe being used as an independent unit.

7.8 In this instance it is considered by Officers that the annexe would not conflict with the aims of Policy ENV8 to provide ancillary accommodation within the curtilage of an existing house that would not be detrimental to the surrounding area.

7.9 Policy ENV8 expects there to be sufficient parking for both the existing dwelling and the annexe within the site. The proposal results in the loss Page 126 3/11/2185/FP

of two parking spaces within the car port. However, there is a significant front driveway space that can accommodate a number of vehicles; Officers are therefore satisfied that there is sufficient provision for parking.

Character and appearance

7.10 In terms of the appearance of the development, this involves an increase in the height of the building by approximately 1 metre. Whilst the scale of the building will be increased, the overall form and design of the building will remain largely as existing. The resultant building remains subordinate to the main dwelling and the hierarchical relationship between dwellinghouse and outbuildings will be retained. The design of the resultant building from the road frontage is acceptable, with the provision of brick recesses do assist in adding detail and interest to the façade. The proposed east elevation involves the provision of small inset dormer windows within the roof slope which appear slightly out of proportion with the pyramid roof slope. However, the existing dwelling benefits from similar dormers and this elevation of the building will not be visible from the road frontage. On balance therefore, the overall design, form and scale of the resultant building is considered to be acceptable and will not result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the building, adjoining dwellinghouse or surroundings.

Neighbouring Amenity

7.11 It is considered that Bromley House is situated within a large site which is located some 60 metres away from the nearest neighbouring dwelling, known as Sunsfield, to the south of the application site. As such, it is considered that the proposed development would not be detrimental to the amenities of nearby neighbouring occupiers.

8.0 Conclusion:

8.1 The proposed annexe as a detached building from the main dwelling, although contrary in part to policy ENV8 would not, in the view of Officers be inappropriately located in relation to the existing house or be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. It is considered that it would not conflict with the aims of Policy ENV8 to provide ancillary living accommodation.

8.2 Having regard to the above considerations it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions at the head of this report. Page 127 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 128 Broken Green Cottages

Frogs Hall House

Broken Green Frogshall Cottages

Lorne Croft

Cedar Cottage Topcropt

Tank Kasteel

Wellpond

House

s Sharpes Farm r

w a Downfield H

Springdale The Old The Post Office Pond House Highfield House Lyndhurst Valentines Lancresse The Oaks Trory Northwood

The Nags Head Almond Bank (PH)

Standon Friars Oakland Stanmore

Ebury Lodge Tarrandune Reevonia Fairbourne The Old House

The Poplars Woodlands Westcott Brook House Cherrys

Tanks

Lansdale Falkenham

Highfield Lodge Homelea

Highfield Farm

Treherne Wellpond Green Oakfield House Cottages Friars Cottage

Highfield Nursery Alderbrook Mead House

River Farm Poultry Houses Cottage

High Oaks

Harley Westledon House

Harbledown Hartsfield Bromley H ouse House

Fernbank

Silver Hatch Farm

The Red Lodge

Sunsfield Wescott

Briarwoods

The Hatch Westlands

Cornwood

Westfield Lodge SITE Cherry Grove Woodside

Ingleton Cottage

Rosecot

Arbour Lodge

Westfield Anstey Farm Westfield Farm Hazelwood Thatched Cottage Cottage House

Silo

Balsams

Westfield Bury

North Cottage Westfield South Cottage

Sun's Farm Little Balsams Cottages New Hall

Easter Hall

Fox and Hound House

Bromley Hall

Cottages

Bromley Barn Bromleyhall Farm

Bromley Lodge Bromley Hall

Ellingtons

West Cottage

Wellrose Cottage

East Herts Council Address: Bromley House, Bromley Lane, Wellpond Green, SG11 1NW Wallfields Reference: 3/11/2185/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:10000 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL4121 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 7 February 2012 Page 129 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 130 Agenda Item 5k 5k 3/11/2006/FP - Rear Extension and Raised Roof with Front and Rear Dormers at High Hedges, The Street, Haultwick SG11 1JQ for Mr John Doran

Date of Receipt: 18.11.2011 Type: Full - Other

Parish: LITTLE MUNDEN

Ward : MUNDENS AND COTTERED

RECOMMENDATION:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Three year time limit (IT12)

2. Materials of construction(2E11)

3. Approved plans – 1130 P01B; 1130 E01 (2E10)

4. Vehicular use of garage (5U10)

Directive:

1. This permission does not convey any consent which may be required under any legislation other than the Town and Country Planning Acts. Any permission required under the Building Regulations or under any other Act, must be obtained from the relevant authority or body e.g. Fire Officer, Health and Safety Executive, Environment Agency (Water Interest) etc. Neither does this permission negate or override any private covenants which may affect the land.

Summary of Reasons for Decision

(200611FP.JS)

Page 131 3/11/2006/FP

1.0 Background:

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract. It comprises a detached single storey dwelling in Haultwick within the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt. 1.2 The dwelling was constructed in the 1960s and is in its original condition save for the addition of a garden room at the rear.

1.3 The proposal is to raise the roof pitch and incorporate a new upper floor with three bedrooms within the enlarged roof space.

1.4 Dwellings within the vicinity of the site include ‘Welgelegen’, a single storey property which lies on its southern side to the rear and 2 Farm Cottages which is next door on its north western side, and is one of a pair of two storey, semi-detached cottages.

2.0 Site History:

2.1 The site history is as follows:

3/59/1120/FP Proposed bungalow - Approved 3/83/1172/FP Erection of chimney stack - Approved

2.2 During the course of its history a garden room has been added to the building, which is to be removed under the current proposals.

3.0 Consultation Responses:

3.1 Five letters of objection have been received. Objections relate to:

• the increase in size of the new dwelling, perceived as twice the size of the existing building. • overshadowing and loss of privacy in respect of no. 2 Farm Cottages. • insufficient parking available. • the creation of a precedent in respect of other single storey dwellings in Haultwick. • the proposals are out of keeping with the existing dwelling, and • the proposed development is not suitable for the size of plot.

4.0 Parish Council Representations:

4.1 Little Munden Parish Council consider that the perceived increase in floor area by over 100% is disproportionate to the size of the plot, taking into Page 132 3/11/2006/FP

account the proximity of the development to the highway and its relatively urban appearance in a rural area.

5.0 Other Representations:

5.1 The application has been advertised by way of site notice and neighbour notification. 5.2 No other letters of representation have been received.

6.0 Policy:

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

GBC3 Appropriate Development in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV5 Extensions to Dwellings ENV6 Extensions to Dwellings – Criteria

6.2 In addition, the following national policy guidance is relevant:-

Planning Policy Guidance 1, Delivering Sustainable Development

7.0 Considerations:

Principle of development

7.1 Under Policy GBC3 – Appropriate Development in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt –limited extensions to existing dwellings will be permitted in accordance with Policy ENV5. Policy ENV5 advises that outside the main settlements and Category 1 and 2 Villages, an extension to a dwelling will be expected to be of a scale and size that would, either by itself, or cumulatively with other extensions, not disproportionately alter the size of the original dwelling or intrude into the openness or rural qualities of the surrounding area. Policy ENV6 sets out certain criteria in respect of design and materials of construction which should be matching or complementary to those of the original building and its setting.

7.2 In the case of the application site, there are no previous extensions to be taken into account. The garden room, which has been added, will be removed under the current proposals.

7.3 The proposal to build a 1.5 storey rear extension, raise the height and Page 133 3/11/2006/FP

pitch of the roof to incorporate an upper floor and add front and rear dormers will increase the main ridge height of the dwelling from 4.2 metres to 7.1 metres. The flat roofed garage at 2.5 metres high will be given a pitched roof which will rise to 5.0 metres to its apex. The roof of the rear arm of the dwelling will be given a steeper pitch, rising in height from 3.9 metres to 5.1 metres at ridge height.

7.4 As a result of the roof extensions it is calculated that the living area will increase from 147.0 square metres to 270.7 square metres, an increase of over 80%. In principle such an increase is beyond what would normally be acceptable, and it is for this reason that the application has been referred to the Committee.

Design

7.5 The character of the existing dwelling does not have any distinctive features which would justify their retention in any redevelopment of the dwelling. The proposed design will provide a steep pitched roof which, while noticeably higher than existing, will allow for the addition of dormer windows reflecting the roof pitch of the new garage roof and the front porch, and providing a coherent design as a whole which is considered to enhance the character and appearance of the property. The applicants, at the officer’s request, have modified the size and width of the dormers, which is considered to improve their proportions and the overall appearance.

Impact on Surrounding Area

7.6 It has been considered by officers in this case that the existing building does not enhance the character of the street scene in visual terms. It is not in itself rural in appearance and has no features which enhance the character and appearance of the village as a whole. Any alteration to the building which could improve the appearance of the dwelling is likely to include a first floor addition such as the design which is now proposed.

7.7 The village has a variety of dwelling types along its main street, both single and two storey. In purely visual terms, it is difficult to argue that a higher dwelling of 1.5 storeys would be out of place. The objection that, were this proposal to be approved, it would set a precedent for other single storey dwellings to be similarly extended, can be given only limited weight since each planning proposal is considered on its own individual merit.

Page 134 3/11/2006/FP

Impact on Neighbour Amenity

7.8 Full consideration has been given to the likely impact of the proposals on the residents of no. 2 Farm Cottages which lies to the north west of the application site. 7.9 It is noted that the design of the proposed dwelling includes a long steeply hipped roof on its north western elevation. This roofline lies adjacent to the side elevation of no. 2 where there is a garage at ground floor level and a bathroom at first floor level. As such it is not considered that this roofline will have any adverse impact on the amenities of the residents at no. 2.

7.10 Attention has also been drawn to the fact that the rear arm of the dwelling at High Hedges runs along the side boundary of no. 2. The height of the rear roof has hitherto not given rise to any concern in terms of loss of light but the residents are concerned that the raising of the roof along the boundary will reduce the light enjoyed in the rear garden. Officers consider that, while some morning sunlight may be lost to the garden area, in planning terms little weight can be given to this limited loss of amenity. It is not considered that the resulting building will overshadow this neighbour.

7.11 The residents also consider that a rooflight serving the stairwell adjacent to no. 2 will lead to a loss of privacy. Officers are unable to give significant weight to this concern since the provision of a rooflight rarely leads to loss of privacy, particularly when it serves a stairwell and not living accommodation. The rear dormer windows are also considered not to invade the privacy of neighbours. Rear windows are a typical feature of most properties and the circumstances of this case do not appear to be exceptional.

Miscellaneous

7.12 The issue of parking provision has also been raised in respect of the application site. The garage, together with the space available at the front of the site will provide parking for at least three cars which is considered adequate in respect of the Council’s SPD on parking provision. Nevertheless, it is considered appropriate that any permission granted should include a condition that the garage should be retained for vehicular use and not for additional living accommodation.

8.0 Conclusion:

8.1 To conclude, the extensions proposed go beyond what would be considered ‘limited’ extensions in accordance with Policies GBC3 and Page 135 3/11/2006/FP

ENV5.

8.2 However, having investigated the issues raised it is considered that, while the floor area of the living accommodation will be increased to a significant extent, the proposals will not cause undue loss of amenity to neighbouring residents. Furthermore, the reduced size of the roof dormers and the use of good roofing materials on a steeper pitched roof will improve the character and appearance of the dwelling as a whole.

8.3 For these reasons it is considered that planning permission should be granted in this case.

Page 136 EE One Ash NN AA LL Pump LL LL House AA HH SS GG OO RR FF

Tinga

SITE

Haultwick Hall

1 e 2 id ys unn Farm Cottages S

TT HH EE SS TT RR h EE g s EEEE i e EE H g TT d e H The Cranny

The Bell Welgelegen Cottage

a en th A te hi ow Haltwick Farm W ill Poultry Houses W

East Herts Council Address: High Hedges, The Street, Haultwick, Herts, SG11 1JQ Wallfields Reference: 3/11/2006/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:1250 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL3323 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 13 February 2012 Page 137 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 138 Agenda Item 5l 5L 3/11/1849/FP - Change of Use from Office to Dog Grooming Parlour (Sui Generis) with new front entrance door and the provision of an Air Conditioning Unit at 30-34 Parliament Square, Hertford, Herts SG14 1EZ for Mr Leo Cunningham

Date of Receipt: 20.10.2011 Type: Full - Other

Parish: HERTFORD

Ward: HERTFORD-CASTLE

RECOMMENDATION:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Three year time limit (IT12)

2. New Doors and Windows (2E34)

3. Prior to any alterations to the building being first commenced, detailed drawings, together with specifications of the proposed air conditioning unit, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the LocalPlanning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with those approved details.

Reason : In the interests of the appearance of the development and in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment

4. The use of the premises for dog grooming shall be restricted to the hours 9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. Monday to Saturday and 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason : In the interests of the amenities of the occupants of nearby properties and in accordance with Policies ENV1 and ENV25 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007

Directive:

1. 01OL Other Legislation

Summary of Reasons for Decision

The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (East of England Plan May 2008, Hertfordshire County Page 139 3/11/1849/FP

Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the saved policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular Policies ENV1, STC3, BH5, PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth and PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that permission should be granted.

(184911FP.JS)

1.0 Background:

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract. It comprises the ground floor of an unlisted building, 30-34 Parliament Square on the southern edge of the historic town centre in the Hertford Conservation Area.

1.2 The site lies within a Secondary Shopping Frontage as defined by Policy STC3 of the East Herts Local Plan.

1.3 The ground floor of the building was formerly occupied by a firm of estate agents. The first floor is currently used as offices.

1.4 The proposal is for the change of use of the ground floor of the building from offices to a dog grooming parlour.

2.0 Site History:

2.1 There is no site history relevant to this proposal.

3.0 Consultation Responses:

3.1 County Highways have advised that, in view of the proximity of the site to public parking and sustainable transport, the proposal is acceptable in a highway context.

3.2 The Environmental Health Department do not wish to restrict the grant of permission.

4.0 Town Council Representations:

4.1 Hertford Town Council have no objection to the proposal.

Page 140 3/11/1849/FP

5.0 Other Representations:

5.1 The application has been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.

5.2 Two letters of objection have been received, one from the occupiers of the first floor of the building and one from a resident at Millers Court, which can be summarised as follows:-

• Noise levels will rise beyond those experienced under the occupation of the estate agents as a result of dogs barking, the proposed air conditioning unit and the operation of dryers, clippers and trimmers over which voices will be raised. • Such noise levels would be intrusive to the operation of professional offices and the amenities of residents of Millers Yard, especially during the spring/summer months when windows are open • The proposal may result in dog fouling and associated odours • There will be an increase in traffic movements arising from the ‘dropping off’ and collection of dogs throughout the day. The access to the parking spaces at the rear of the building from a single opening to Millers Yard lies on a dangerous bend with very restricted visibility.

6.0 Policy:

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality STC3 Secondary Shopping Frontages BH5 Extensions and alterations to Unlisted Buildings in Conservation Areas

6.2 In addition, the following national policy guidance is relevant:-

Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment

Page 141 3/11/1849/FP

7.0 Considerations:

Principle of development

7.1 Under Policy STC3 ‘Secondary Shopping Frontages’, proposals for changes of use falling within designated use classes will be permitted provided that this will not result in an excessive concentration of non- shop uses.

7.2 The change of use requested in this case is for a dog grooming parlour which does not fall within any of the use classes designated in Policy STC3 but has its own use class i.e. ‘ sui generis’ . In considering this proposal the character of the use, which generates visits and provides a public service, has similarities to other secondary town centre uses in STC3. It is not anticipated that the use would harm the vitality of the town centre. It is anticipated that a total of twelve to fifteen animals will be groomed per day resulting in approximately three to five animals on the site in any one hour. At least two of these animals will be in the enclosure of the bathing and drying room.

7.3 In principle, therefore, the use is complementary to the town centre and considered acceptable.

Impact on Conservation Area

7.4 The application relates largely to the change of use which does not in itself alter the external appearance of the building.

7.5 In addition to the change of use, it is proposed to construct a central door in the front elevation and an air conditioning unit to be located at the rear side elevation in Millers Yard. Under Policy BH5, proposals to extend or alter an unlisted building in a Conservation Area will be permitted provided that they are sympathetic to the building itself, adjacent buildings and the general character and appearance of the area.

7.6 It is considered that the additional front door will be acceptable in principle. The submission of detailed scaled drawings and specifications for approval by the local planning authority can be secured by planning condition; a simpler detailing omitting the pilasters would be preferred.

7.7 It is noted that the air conditioning unit will be sited on the rear side wall of the building in Millers Yard. In consideration of the fact that the unit will not be visible from the public highway, there is no objection in principle. Further details of the proposed unit would be required via planning condition. Page 142 3/11/1849/FP

Impact on amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings

7.8 Policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan requires that development proposals should respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings and ensure that their environments are not harmed by noise and disturbance. Neighbour objections to the proposal relate largely to the potential noise problem of dogs barking. The applicants, who have an existing salon in Potters Bar, are experienced in running dog grooming parlours. They advise that they will divide the floor into separate working zones. This helps to contain the reflection of sound by dissipating sound through absorptive materials. If a dog barks and becomes a problem, the animal is removed to a kennel within the enclosed drying and bathing area which is fitted with sound absorption tiles and sound absorption enclosures for equipment and animals. The applicants advise that dogs usually bark because they want attention and do not bark once they are being groomed.

7.9 Sound levels can be high if not contained effectively and may arise from a combination of people talking, music from a radio and the sound emitted from the various machines. The applicants consider that a lack of professionalism and attention to detail is usually at the root of the problem and that, if pets are handled correctly, they rarely contribute to the sound level as they are relatively calm in the hands of a professional.

7.10 In addition the applicants propose to add secondary double glazing to the interior of the rear window of the bathing and drying area, high density acoustic foam in the cavity will be installed where stud work is required and the ceiling will be coated in sound absorptive tiles. The applicants advise that the vast majority of sound can be contained within an enclosed bathing and drying area where all potentially noisy machinery will be contained.

7.11 No objections to the proposal have been raised by the Environmental Health Department, and if any statutory noise nuisance were to result, there is Environmental Health legislation which could adequately control this.

Hours of Work

7.12 The hours of work of the salon are from Monday to Saturday from 9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. Monday to Saturday. Sunday opening hours are proposed from 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. These hours are considered reasonable and officers do not consider that any noise or disturbance caused by the use would, during those hours, be detrimental to amenity in the area. Page 143 3/11/1849/FP

Parking

7.13 There will be four full time staff initially with six part time staff comprising groomers, grooming assistants/trainees and teaching staff.

7.14 Five car parking spaces will be available for use by the salon at the rear of the building. It is anticipated that staff parking will take up two to three spaces and that two will be available for customer use only.

7.15 It is anticipated that most customers will only require parking when they collect or deliver their pet while others will make use of the local short term pay and display parking facilities if they are shopping or using other in-town facilities.

7.16 Student training courses are proposed over several days. Students are encouraged to travel by train and book accommodation with local providers. It is anticipated that this part of the business will not generate additional requirements for parking. Being within the town centre, the site is also reasonably accessible for people travelling by sustainable modes of travel.

7.17 County Highways have raised no objection to the proposal in view of the proximity of the site to public parking and sustainable transport.

7.18 The restricted access is not ideal, but results from a historic situation. Since there would have been vehicle movements by staff and visitors to the estate agents, Officers do not consider that the use proposes a significant change.

Potential for Dog Fouling

7.19 Consideration has been given to the potential for dog fouling in the vicinity of the salon. Dog owners are expected to keep the environment clean. No objections in this regard have been raised by the Environmental Health Department, and there is other legislation that can be enforced should such a problem occur.

8.0 Conclusion:

8.1 The use of the site in planning terms has similar characteristics to other town centre activities, providing a professional service for customers dropping in. While the intensity of the use may be less than the previous use, the location is quite peripheral to the town centre and it is considered preferable to secure occupancy rather than prolong the vacancy of the unit. There are not considered to be highways or Page 144 3/11/1849/FP

neighbour amenity reasons to reject the proposal.

8.2 Having given all matters due consideration, it is the recommendation of officers that the application be approved, subject to the conditions at the head of this report.

Page 145 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 146 DDDGGG GGGEEE EEE 4 18 2 2b

6 t

to o

3 4 5

4 9

9 HHH c t 1 HHH is

0 ooo r

ooo ou 1 n

1 nnn T

16 nnn tio 1 eee 3 eee a

eeyeyy m

yyy r Hotel 8 ttt 1 o ttt 5 f e eeeeeettt L L L 4 n tr tttrrreeeeee LLL I n SSStttrrreee aaa e

SSS aaa C

nnn

1 nnn 0

9 eee 1

ddd 7 eee 2 ddd aaaddd 1

eeeaaa ( ( ( MMM 1

hhheeeaaa o ( ( ( 9 MMM eee t

nnnhhh ((P(PP 4 eeennnhhh PPP

8 dddeeennn AAA iididd 3 aaa

2 aaaiididd aaa AAA 23

MMaaa ttt RRR MM 2 tththh 8 RRR 3 hhh KKK

))) 7 KKK 1 2 ))) 5 2 EEE TTT 5 EEE

TTT EEE 25

HHH EEE TTT HHH 2 EEE TTT HHH 7 CCC EEE CCC EEE AAA P P P

AAA PPP

WW W LLL LLL W W W 3 LLL LLL WWW 1 PPPLLL PPP AAA 1

AAA AAA to 2

AAA CCC 7

6 CCC 1

SSS 3 1 3 SSS 2 SSS 9 EEE

HHH EEE

HHH n t

vro o

E 5

Castle Hall 3

lace T T

P T T T T

T T T

4 E E E

E E E Shire Hall

E E

e E

K K

s K

K K

u K

K K K

8 o

(Civic Offices) 4

o R R H R

R R R

5 rim

A A

g A A A

l A

A A

Pi A

M M M

4 M M M

15 4

3 6

3 4

3 1 2

11 0 Hotel 28

PCs

6 2 B

10 6

1 a t

PH 3 o

2 n 4 k 5

1 2

8 1 2 8

6 4

6 Hotel 5 1

1 4

1 0

t o BBB BBB

BBB

4 EEE 6 EEE EEE

LLL

LLL LLL 2 LLL LLL

PPP LLL 2 PPP

ARARAR L L L

1 LLL

ARARAR LLL

ARARAR

AAA 4 AAA

AAA CCC 1 1 NNN CCC LLL NNN CCC 1 LLL NNN HHH F LLL HHH III EEE UUU o t III EEE UUU o C IAMIAMIAM EEE UUU r 1 AMAMAM RRR d a RRR H 6 CCC h s t CCC o a

t o HHH u

l EEE HHH m 3 e 7 EEE s NTNTNT S S S 1 e v NTNTNT SSS i TTT 7 e TTRTRR w RRR EEE S S S EEE

SSS 5 EEE QQQ EETETT QQQ 4 TTT

UAUAUA

6 UAUAUA

1 O 7

a l 1 RERERE d RERERE n 9

u V 5 9 f i a c

c a 1

t r

1 o

3 r

8 g

y 1 e

M o

H B 3 0 e

o 2 l u f

1 r s y 5 e

2 7 2

PH 8

PPP PPP PPP AAA AAA AAA RRR

RRR 1

RRR

8 SSS 9

SSS LLL 2 LLL SSS LLL QQQ I I I QQQ I I I QQQ IAIAIA AAA AAA

UUU 2 6

UUU 0 UUU MMM

MMM 1

MMM 3 AAA AAA AAA EEE EEE RRR EEE RRR

RRR NNN 2 NNN

NNN

EEE 2 3 EEE EEE TTT TTT 3 SITE TTT

MMiii lll 4

MMiilillleleerrrsss 2 eee 3 rrrsss Y YY 5 Y YYaaarrrddd

8 3 6

1 1

5 7

Millers Court 2

4 3

Bayley

1 8 7 1 T T T Hall T T T T T T

EEE EEE EEE EEE EEE EEE Mews RRR RRR RRR T T T 0 T T T T T T 2 SSS SSS S S S

EEE EEE EEE L L L L L L YYY L L L YYY T T T AAA T T T AAA T T T AAA SSS SSS WW SSS W W AAA AAA EEE AAA NNNEEE CCC NNN CCC NNN CCC YYY QQQUUU OOYYY UUUEEE CCCOO 4 EEEEEE SSSCCC 2 NNN''' SSS ''S'SS 1 AAA R RROOO GG OOOAAA AAADDD

Gas Govn

28 TTT

TTT 2 EEE 1 8 EEEEEE RRREEE TTTRRR

SSSTTT 2

EEE 3 LLLEEE SSSTTTLLL AAASSS CCCAAA 6 1 to 1 1 to

2 5 Castle Queens Gate

Court

2 36 9

PH 3 5 1

3 t

9 o

3 9

7 YY Hale AAYY WW Court NNEE OOYYNN AASSCCOO GGAASS This copy has been produced specifically for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528

East Herts Council Address: 30 - 34 Parliament Square, Hertford, Herts, SG14 1EZ Wallfields Reference: 3/11/1849/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:1250 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL3212SE Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 13 February 2012 Page 147 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 148 Agenda Item 5m 5m E/11/0274/B - Unauthorised erection of a second floor rear extension above the rear wing of the property at 8 Trinity Road, Ware, SG12 7DB

Parish: WARE

Ward: WARE TRINITY

RECOMMENDATION:

That Members note that Officers’, in consultation with the Chairman, have exercised their delegated powers to act in cases of urgency to serve an enforcement notice under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the removal of the unauthorised development from the land.

Period for compliance: 6 Months.

Reason why it was expedient to issue an enforcement notice:

1. The development by reason of its height, scale and design has an overbearing appearance and is out of keeping with and detrimental to the character and appearance of the dwelling, the pair of dwellings of which it forms part, the street scene and fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area contrary to saved policies ENV1, ENV5 and ENV6 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and national planning guidance in PPS1 'Delivering Sustainable Development' para 34.

Reason why it was necessary to exercise delegated powers:

1. The above works were refused a certificate of lawful use under delegated powers on 12 th December 2011 and an appeal against that decision has now been received by the Council. Given the time and costs involved in servicing such appeals it is the Authority’s practice to serve enforcement notices promptly to enable appeals against both the refusal of the application and the enforcement notice to be linked and determined simultaneously. Given the time before the next Committee meeting it was considered that there would be insufficient time to conjoin the appeals if delegated powers were not used.

(027411B.CA)

1.0 Background:

1.1 The site is shown on the attached OS extract. It forms one of a pair of Victorian semi-detached houses and is situated on the west side of Trinity Road about 45 metres north of the junction with Musley Lane. Page 149 E/11/0274/B

Photographs of the site will be available at the meeting.

1.2 In August 2011 a concern was expressed to the Authority that there were works underway to extend the property without the benefit of planning permission.

1.3 The enforcement officer visited the site on 6th September 2011 and viewed the works. The enforcement officer spoke to the owner who considered that the development was permitted under Class B of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended); roof alterations.

1.4 The works consisted of the removal of the roof of the rear wing of the property, the creation of a dormer window in the rear slope of the main roof, the removal of the gable end wall of the rear wing, the creation of second floor walls and a new flat roof. This additional room interconnected with the dormer window. The new walls were clad in a material of slate appearance.

1.5 Officers considered that the works were not authorised by the terms of Class B of the Order and were also not permitted by any other Class of it. The enforcement officer wrote to the owner informing her of this, advising that planning permission was required for the works which, by that time, were complete.

1.6 The owner submitted an application for a certificate of lawful use or development (3/11/1695/CL) seeking the formal view of the local planning authority, which was validated on 23 rd September 2011. This was refused by officers under delegated powers on 12 th December 2011.

1.7 No application for planning permission has been received to date.

1.8 Members may recall a similar case at 15 London Road, Hertford which was reported to Members on 25 th May 2011. In that matter a planning inspector has recently dismissed the appeal made against the enforcement notice and upheld the requirements of the notice.

1.9 Photographs of the site will be available at the meeting.

2.0 Planning History:

2.1 The most relevant planning history for the site can be summarised as follows:

Page 150 E/11/0274/B

3/11/1195/FP Rear conservatory. - Approved.

3/11/1695/CL Rear dormer window. - Refused.

3.0 Policy:

3.1 The relevant saved policies of the adopted Local Plan in this matter are:-

ENV1 - Design and Environmental Quality.

ENV5 - Extensions to Dwellings.

ENV6 - Extensions to Dwellings – Criteria.

4.0 Considerations:

4.1 The determining issues in this case relate to the height, scale and design of the unauthorised development and its impact on the character and appearance of the building and its surroundings.

4.2 The development has resulted in the raising of the roof of the existing rear wing of the dwelling by 1.5 metres above the former ridge height over a length of 3.5 metres to create an additional floor level with a flat roof. The accommodation created above the rear wing at second floor level now forms an additional en-suite bathroom. This creates a bulky and overly dominant structure that significantly detracts from the traditional symmetry of the Victorian semi-detached properties, of which it forms a part.

4.3 The development is bulky and unduly conspicuous within the surrounding street scene to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.

5.0 Recommendation:

It is therefore recommended that Members’ note the authorisation given under delegated powers to issue and serve a Planning Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the unauthorised development from the land and the reinstatement of the building to its former condition.

Page 151 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 152

2 EEE YYY 5 YYY 1 DDD EEE DDD EEE NNN LLL NNN LLL AAA SSS AAA SSS a SSS SSS UUU 7

UUU 3

MMM 6

MMM 5 4

7 2 3 5

5 2

4 9 1

0 2 7

2 8 DDD DDD

AAA

AAA 5 OOO 6 OOO RRR R R R

YYY YYY TTT ITITIT I I I NNN

INININ

I I I 9 RRR 6 RRR TTT TTT

8 El Sub Sta 1

5 1

1 3

11 9

2 4

6 SITE

23 b

4 6

8 2 6

9 1

E 1 E E

E E E

6 1

S 0 S S

S 1 S

S 2

S S

S 5

O 4 O O

O 1 O O

O O O

L L L

C C C

E E E E E E E E E

S S S S S S S S S

UUU UUU UUU

OOO OOO OOO

HHH

H H H 0

NNN NNN NNN L L L L L L ILILIL I I I I I I KKK Pumping KKK KKK Station

1 1 37 Gas Govn

MMM UUU UUUSSS SSSLLL LLLEEE

EEEYYY

4 YYY 3 L LL

LLLAAA

1 AAANNN 3 NNN 1 1 NNN

EEE

3 7

East Herts Council Address: 8 Trinity Road, Ware, Herts, SG12 7DB Wallfields Reference: E/11/0274/B Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:1250 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL3614NW Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 26 January 2012 Page 153 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 154 Agenda Item 5n 5n E/11/0246/A – Unauthorised advertisements displayed on a Grade II listed building without listed building and advertisement consent at 39 Hockerill Street, Bishops Stortford, CM23 2DH

Parish: BISHOP’S STORTFORD

Ward: BISHOP’S STORTFORD MEADS

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Director of Neighbourhood Services in conjunction with the Director of Internal Services, be authorised to commence legal proceedings under Section 9 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and/or Section 224(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for the unauthorised display of advertisements on a Grade II listed building.

Reasons why it is expedient to issue summonses:

1. The fascia signs by reason of their size and siting appear out of keeping with the historic character and appearance of the Grade II listed building; its setting and the visual amenities of the surrounding Conservation Area. They are thereby contrary to Policy BH15 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.

(024611A.GD)

1.0 Background:

1.1 The site lies within the built up area of Bishop’s Stortford and within the Bishop’s Stortford Conservation Area. No 39 is a two storey Grade II Listed Building and is currently being used as a hairdressing salon. It fronts onto Hockerill Street and is encompassed by other Listed Buildings.

1.2 Concerns were expressed to the local planning authority in August 2011 about three new fascia signs affixed to the central jetted gable at the front of the building, which projects 2.5 metres beyond the front building line of the other properties within Hockerill Street, overhanging the pavement. The signs are attached to the front and flank elevations of this gable and have been designed with a pale blue background with green and red lettering and multiple coloured strips. The three fascia signs reach heights of between 0.5 and 0.6metres. Two of the signs are 1.6metres in width with the third, front fascia sign being 2.2metres in width.

Page 155 E/11/0246/A

1.3 Officers advised the owner that listed building consent would be required for the alteration of the building by the addition to the new fascia signs. He was also advised of the offence that was being committed by displaying the signs without the proper consent.

1.4 Subsequent applications for listed building consent, under reference 3/11/1666/LB, and advertisement consent, under reference 3/11/1358/AD, were both refused for the following reasons.

3/11/1666/LB: • The fascia signs by reason of their size and siting appear out of keeping with and unsympathetic to the character and appearance of the Grade II Listed Building and are harmful to the historic and architectural interest of the building. The fascia signs are thereby contrary to PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment.

3/11/1358/AD: • The fascia signs by reason of their size and siting appear out of keeping with and detrimental to the setting of the Grade II Listed Building and the visual amenities of the surrounding Conservation Area. They are thereby contrary to Policy BH15 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment.

1.5 Your officers advised the owner, following the above-mentioned refusals of his right to appeal the decisions and they also sought the owner’s proposal and timescales for the removal the unauthorised signage or the submission of any appeal. No response was received.

2.0 Planning History:

2.1 LPA refs. 3/10/0918/LB and 3/10/1403/AD – retrospective advertisement and listed building consent refused and dismissed at appeal for the erection of 3No. non-illuminated fascia signs

2.2 LPA refs. 3/04/0651/AD and 3/04/0736/LB – applications withdrawn by applicant for 3 No. advertisement signs.

2.3 LPA refs. 3/04/2102/LB and 3/04/2141/AD - advertisement and listed building consent granted for the erection of 3No. non-illuminated fascia signs.

Page 156 E/11/0246/A

3.0 Policy:

3.1 BH15 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 is relevant in this case, together with national planning guidance in PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment.

4.0 Considerations:

4.1 The existing signs were erected without the required advertisement and listed building consents. It should be noted that advertisement and listed building consents were refused in 2010 for similar signs. A subsequent appeal was dismissed and this became a material consideration when considering the recent applications. A copy of the appeal decision is attached as Appendix A to this report.

4.2 The current signs attached to the front of the building are slightly smaller than the previously refused fascia signs but are sited in the same location. The Council’s Conservation Officer recommended refusal of the retrospective applications as it was considered that the signs have a detrimental impact on the listed building and its wider setting. In accordance with the Conservation Officer’s objection and the Inspectors decision on the previously erected fascia signs, Officers consider that the three fascia signs currently displayed are of a size and siting that detract from and dominate this central gable structure, which is considered an important feature of this historic building.

4.3 The fascia signs that have been erected are made of timber and have been hand painted. It is noted that the Conservation Officer considers that the timber signs and hand painted signs are of an acceptable material, suitable to the character and appearance of the Listed Building.

4.4 However, the signs that have been erected are larger than those that were approved in 2004 and do not sit comfortably in relation to the fenestration on the existing building but appear visually prominent. In this respect, the fascia signs have a detrimental impact upon the character, appearance and setting of this Grade II Listed property and harm its special interest as a listed property. The advertisements therefore fail to accord with the requirements of PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment and do not overcome the LPA’s or the Inspector’s previous concerns.

5.0 Recommendation:

5.1 It is therefore considered that the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in conjunction with the Director of Internal Services, be authorised to issue Page 157 E/11/0246/A

summonses for the offences under the listed building and advertisement regulations.

Page 158 5 CCC CCC 4 C C C 2 0

SSS o SSS SSS t Ly GGG GGG 6 6 GGG

1 o NNN 2 NNN t 8 INININ I I I 2 I I I KKK KKK KKK

3 2 o Cr t

own House 5 2 1 DDD 1 DDD to 7 AAA AAA OOO OOO 2 RRR 2 R R R

e DDD 5 DDD 9 1 EEE us 1 o EEE t 1 TTT o o TTT t 2

H SSS SSS 1

g NNN NNN n i AAA l AAA TTT TTT ow SSS SSS

e 5

e 3

o 5

u 1

e o t

3 1

7 0 1 Dearlove Place

2 0

1 1

t o

2 3 2

12 2

4 13 11 10

1 to 38

Fuller 1 8 Court 9

o t

Castle 1 d l s View g O n i e t 21 l h a T M

11 15 13 17 19 23c

23 23a 25 27 23b 27 a 29 HHOOCCKKEEERR KKEEERRIILILLLLL SSSTTTRR 37 SSSTTTRREEEEEETTT

0 2

2 6 2

b 6 1

0 2 3

8 3

2 3 6

2 0

4 Hall 4 3

1 PH a 1 6 1

3 4

PO 4

8 4

4 2

6 4

0 13 5

8 s 4 t r 1 r e to u k

5 6 o a

C a B

6 2

4 Joscelyn's 6

4 26

2 9 Yard

2 7 9

1 t 1 4 o 1

1 2 1

1 2

2 t

o o 0

t 2

3 8 2

3 9

t t o o

1 1

8 1 2 2 2

3 o t

t l

o SITE

l 1

E E E 4 3

E E E 6 o 3

2 E E E t r t

4 C C C C C C r C C C 1 e

A A A A A A k u A A A

R R R c R R R o R R R

R R R o R R R R R R C

E E E E E E H E E E

T T T

T T T t T T T o 8

N N N o 2

N N N

N N N t 7 0

1 WWW 5

WWW 8

t WWW o

3 O O O O O O 2 1 4 O O O

3 R R R

R R R a

t 8

0 R R R o

5 C C C C C C C C C

5 4 2 4 HHH HHHAAARRRRRRIININN RRRIININNGGTTTOO TTTOONNN C CCLLLOO

LLLOOSSSEEE

3 5

1 t

4 b

0 Bakery a

3 1

1 4 6

Priors t

5 2 5 KKK LLL AAA WWW W WW EEE GGG NNN

AAA 2 AAA D D D D D D RRR

D D D 9 RRR 4 RRR A A A GGG 9 A A A GGG A A A GGG

O O O O O O O O O

R R R R R R R R R

N N N N N N N N N 33a O O O O O O O O O

D D D D D D D D D 33

N N N N N N N N N

O O O O O O O O O

L L L L L L L L L

East Herts Council Address: 39 Hockeill Street, Bishops Stortford, Herts, CM23 2DH Wallfields Reference: E/11/0246/A Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:1250 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL4921SW Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 7 February 2012 Page 159 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 160 Agenda Item 5o 5o E/12/0046/A – Proposed development of a pedestrian footbridge and ramps over the railway track, with temporary compound and access, at Johnson’s Crossing at Land off Grange Paddock, Rye Street, Bishop’s Stortford, CM23 2HD

Parish: BISHOP’S STORTFORD

Ward: BISHOP’S STORTFORD MEADS

RECOMMENDATION:

That no formal enforcement action is taken in this matter, provided that an application seeking planning permission for the proposal is submitted in a reasonable period of time, the outcome of which is the grant of planning permission. In the absence of that, the matter be reported back to the Committee for further consideration.

(004612A.GD)

1.0 Background:

1.1 Members will be aware of the fatal accident at Johnson’s Footpath Crossing, when a 15-year-old girl was hit by a train as she crossed the tracks at this unmanned crossing point on Saturday 28 th January 2012.

1.2 At the time that this report was written, it appears that Network Rail, which is responsible for the railway infrastructure, had started to draw up a new scheme for a bridge at this crossing prior to this accident. In view of the tragedy, they now wish to bring forward the start date of the proposed development. They have arranged a meeting on site with their representatives, and officers of this Council, to include representatives of the Property Department, Development Control and Environmental Services. Following that meeting, they propose to submit an application by Friday 10 th February 2012 for a pedestrian footbridge with disabled access. Members of the Committee will be updated at the meeting.

1.3 Should Network rail commence the proposed work, prior to the grant of planning permission, they will be advised that all work will be continued at their own risk until all required planning and other issues have been regularised.

2.0 Planning History:

2.1 There is no planning history for this site.

Page 161 E/12/0046/A

3.0 Policy:

3.1 Subject to the submission of an application seeking the grant of planning permission, the following policies will fall to be considered: GBC1 Appropriate Development in the Metropolitan Green Belt ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping ENV4 Access for Disabled People ENV23 Light Pollution and Floodlighting BH1 Archaeology and New Developments BH2 Archaeological Evaluations and Assessments BH3 Archaeological Conditions and Agreements LRC1 Sport and Recreation Facilities

4.0 Considerations:

4.1 The initial proposed general arrangements for the bridge crossing, seen by officers, show a 15metre bridge over the tracks accessed on the west side by a two phase ramp running parallel to the line and access stairs. To the eastern side the single ramp gently falls from the bridge to ground level, following the current path. This proposed development may necessitate a temporary secure compound and access to the development site.

4.2 Your officers have considered the possibility of the commencement of this new development by Network Rail in advance of the necessary permissions.

4.3 The location is in the Green Belt. The land on the west side of the rail line is designated as open space. The development proposed is not one that is considered as appropriate in terms of PPG2 and local plan policy GBC1. In terms of other harm, whilst the design is utilitarian, it is considered to be a conventional and acceptable approach to delivering a bridge crossing here. The location is some distance from residential properties, the closest ones being 50 metres or so distant from the east side of the bridge. It is likely that any bridge would appear in the views from these properties but not so prominently that it would have any significant harm. The potential for overlooking from the bridge or the impact of any illumination are also likely to be similarly minimal.

4.4 With regard to the impact on the open space designation, it is considered that the impact will be limited. The bridge would require the use of the some of the designated land, but would not compromise that overall use. The site is designated as an area of archaeological interest. Because groundworks will be necessary there is the potential for remains of Page 162 E/12/0046/A

archaeological interest to be disturbed. It is considered most likely that a condition requiring the normal investigation of those remains would be adequate were a permission to be forthcoming.

4.5 The structure is open in nature and its impact on openness is therefore limited. Other harm is considered to be limited. As a result, it is considered that weight could be given to other issues, not least public safety, such that very special circumstances exist. As a result, it is not expedient to take immediate enforcement action, should the development commence before the grant of planning permission. If an application is not submitted as previously agreed, or within a reasonable timescale, it is open for the matter to be brought back to the Development Control Committee for further consideration.

5.0 Recommendation:

5.1 It is recommended that your officers take no formal enforcement action subject to the grant of planning permission in a reasonable timescale.

Page 163 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 164 96

7 50

E E E E E E SESE E S S OSOSOS O O OS LOLOLOS L L L CLCLCL C C C C C C

SSS SSS NNSNSS OONONN OONONN NNONOO NNNNNN NNNNNN AANANN CCACAA CCACAA CCC

3 6

Grange Paddocks Swimming Pool 6 1 SITE

2 7

7 1

2 2

1b 1a

S S S

NS NS NS E E E NS NS NS

DE N DE N DE N

R DE R DE R DE 7 A R D A R D A R D

GA R GA R GA R 2 GA GA GA Y Y Y G G G R Y R Y R Y

R R Y R R Y R R Y E E E R R R R R R

H ER H ER H ER

CH E CH E CH E

CH CH CH

C C C 1

2 7 3

DODLODPLOHPLHPH DDD INI NWI NWA WYAYAY

OOLPLOHPLHIPNIHN WI NW W

DODLODPLOHPLHPH AAYYAY INI NWI NWA WYAYAY

9 3

47 0 8

8 5 6

D D D D D D ADADAD A A A OAOAOA O O O RORORO R R R R R R E E E E E E GEGEGE G G G D GD GD G ID ID ID ID ID ID RI RI RI R R R B RB RB R B B B SBSBSB S S S GSGSGS G G G NGNGNG IN IN IN IN IN IN K I K I K I K K K K K K 16

8 Farley 6a 6

KIKNIKNIN KKKGSGMSGMSM ININGIGSNSGESAEDAE DA D KIKNIKNINMEMEAMAEARORAORDAODAD

GSGMSGMSMDD R DRO ORO

EAEDAE DA D ADADAD RORAORDAODAD

7 1 Copp

erfield

3 9

a 4

1 2

East Herts Council Address: Johnson's Crossing, Bishops Stortford, Herts Wallfields Reference: E/12/0046/A Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:2500 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL4921NW Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 7 February 2012 Page 165 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 166 Agenda Item 6 EAST HERTS COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 29 FEBRUARY 2012

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

6. UPDATE ON ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS AND AUTHORISED ACTION

WARDS AFFECTED: ALL

Purpose/Summary of Report:

1.1 To update Members on enforcement statistics and authorised action.

RECOMMENDATION FOR DECISION: that

(A) The report be noted.

2.0 Report

2.1 This report is to update members of the Development Control Committee on the enforcement statistics and the authorised actions from previous meetings.

2.2 The statistics are reported at paragraph 3.0 below and the updated report of authorised actions can be found in the attached Essential Reference Paper.

3.0 Statistics

3.1 Enforcement Cases 2005 601 19% increase on 2004 Enforcement Cases 2006 642 6% increase on 2005 Enforcement Cases 2007 677 5% increase on 2006 Enforcement Cases 2008 654 3% decrease on 2007 Enforcement Cases 2009 526 19% decrease on 2008 Enforcement Cases 2010 434 17% decrease on 2009 Enforcement Cases 2011 418 3% decrease on 2010 Enforcement Cases 2012 45 as at 1 st February 2012

Page 167 3.1 Notices served. (* to date)

Year Enf. Not LBEN S215 HH BCN PCN

2004 15 1 2 - 1 2 2005 23 - 1 - - 3 2006 30 3 1 2 2 15 2007 44 3 2 - 2 11 2008 26 - 2 1 2 5 2009 29 1 3 - 2 8 2010 44 2 6 - - 31 2011 16 4 - - - 10 2012* Abbreviations Enf. Not Enforcement Notice LBEN Listed Building Enforcement Notice S215 section 215 Notice HH High Hedge Remedial Notice BCN Breach of Condition Notice PCN Planning Contravention Notice

Contact Member: Councillor Malcolm Alexander, Executive Member for Community Safety and Environment.

Contact Officer: Glyn Day, Principal Planning Enforcement Officer, Extn: 1551.

Report Author: Glyn Day, Principal Planning Enforcement Officer, Extn: 1551.

Page 168 ESSENTIAL REFERENCE PAPER ‘A’

Contribution to Caring about what’s built and where the Council’s Care for and improve our natural and built environment. Corporate Priorities/ Shaping now, shaping the future Objectives Safeguard and enhance our unique mix of rural and (delete as urban communities, ensuring sustainable, economic and appropriate): social opportunities including the continuation of effective development control and other measures.

Consultation: Not subject to consultation.

Legal: Enforcement notices are all subject to consultation with the Legal Manager. Financial: Enforcement Notices can result in appeals with associated costs. Human None. Resource: Risk Risks associated with enforcement action are considered Management: prior to the decision to take formal action.

Page 169 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 170 ENFORCEMENT NOTICES

Case Number Problem Address Notice Type DC Committee date Issued Date Comment and Target issue date

Appeal Lodged - Fencing only. 62 Mangrove Road, Planning appeal dismissed. Now Unauthorised extensions Enforcement Notice Committee: 4th E/07/0474/B Hertford, Herts 18th July 2008 subject to JR review. Further appeals and fencing OPER DEV June 2008 SG13 8AN against refusal of pp also dismissed at appeal.

Tharbies Farm, Non-compliance of Notices. Rook End, High Unauthorised extension to a LB Notice Op DEV Committee: 11th Summons issued. Court 7th June E/08/0021/A Wych, 8th April 2009 listed barn MCoU March 2009 2011.Conditional discharge. New Sawbridgeworth, application submitted CM210LL

Various unauthorised Tewin Bury Farm Notices served. Appeals lodged. developments and material Hotel at Tewin Bury Committee: 18th Appeal dismissed. Compliance by 5th E/08/0497/B change of use of car park Farm Hotel, MCOU and OD 18th January 2010 November 2009, Jan 2012 site visit has been made area and operation Hertford Road, and marquee is being dismantled development of house Welwyn AL60JB

Unauthorised erection of a Host Bar, 4 The Notice served. Appeal lodged. Committee: 18th large umbrella roofed Corn Exchange Opertional Dev and 26.07.10 Appeal dismissed November 2009, E/08/0447/A structure, with a logo Marekt Suware, LB Enforcement 25th January 2010 2/12/2010. Compliance 02.12.2011 - Target:27th advertisement and glass Bishops Stortford Notice Jumberellas removed glass screens January 2010 screens CM23 3UU remain as at 31/01/2012

Committee: 18th Change of use of agricultural Westley Wood Notice served. Appeal lodged. Appeal November 2009, E/10/0152/A dwelling to accommodation Farmhouse, Enforcement Notice 13th May 2010 dismissed. Compliance by 08.06.1. Target: 30th for hotel Tewinbury Farm No change identified on initial site visit December 2009 Page 171 Noticed served. Not complied with.

Page 172 Court 20.06.2011. Non attendance. Unauthorised residential use Owner arrested.. Crown Court of the land; the unauthorised prosecution 15th August 2011. erection of a Yurt style Further appearances to court have residential structure; the 17 Coltsfoot lane, been made with the result that the Committee: 13th construction of a Bulls Green owner was fined fined £1,750 on E/09/0510/B MCOU and OD May 2010, Target: 8th June 2010 subterranean, or partly Knebworth SG9 each count, using the maximum in the 24th June 2010 subterranean, building and 0LN Magistrates Court of £20,000 as a the failure to comply with the base, and ordered him to pay £15 requirements of a planning victim surcharge and £17,885 contravention notice prosecution costs. This makes a total of £21,400 and is to be paid by 16th March 2012.

Plot 1 - without planning Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged permission the use of the Enforcement E/10/00/AA Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening site for the storage of mobile Notice. MCOU Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days homes

Plot 1 - without planning permission the Committee: 24th Esbies estate Notices served Appeals Lodged erection/construction of a Operational March 2011, E/10/0010/A1 Station Road 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening shed; the erection of a development Target: 5th May Sawbridgeworth again in 28th Febuary for three days lighting column and the 2011 laying of hard surfacing

Plots,2,3,4, - without planning permission the Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged Operational E/10/0010/A2 erection of lighting columns Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening development and the laying of hard Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days surfacing

Plots,2,3,4, - without planning permission the Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged Enforcement E/10/0010/A3 change of use of the land for Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening Notice. MCOU the parking or storage of Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days vehicles and trailers Plots 8,9,10 - without planning permission the use Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged Enforcement E/10/0010/A4 of the site for permanent Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening Notice. MCOU residential accommodation Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days in six mobile homes

Plots 8,9,10 - without Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged Operational E/10/0010/A4 planning permission the Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening development erection of lighting columns Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days

Plots 11,12, without planning Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged Operational E/10/0010/A5 permission of the laying of Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening development hard surfacing Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days

Plots 13,14,15, - without Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged planning permission the Operational E/10/0010/A6 Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening laying of hard surfacing and development Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days the erection of light columns

Plots 16,17, and 18 - without planning permission the Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged Operational E/10/0010/A7 construction of sheds, Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening development lighting columns and hard Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days surfacing

Plots 19,20,21 - without Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged Operational E/10/0010/A8 planning permission the Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening development construction of sheds Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days Page 173 Page 174 Plots 19,20,21 - without planning permission the use of the land for (a) permanent residential purposes, (b) the parking of motor vehicles to Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged Enforcement E/10/0010/A9 include commercial vans, Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening Notice. MCOU lorries and trailers © for the Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days storage of plant machinery and building/road repairs materials and (d0 the use of the land for animal keeping

Plots 26,27, and 28 - without Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged Operational E/10/0010/A10 planning permission the Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening development laying of hard surfacing Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days

plots 26,27,and 28 - without planning permission the use of the site for the storage of Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged mobile homes; the parking Enforcement E/10/0010/A11 Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening of motor vehicles to include Notice. MCOU Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days lorries, vans and trailers; and the storage of plant and machinery and gas bottles

plots 29 - without planning permission the laying of hard Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged surfacing the construction of Operational E/10/0010/A12 Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening a porch structure to the front development Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days of a mobile home and the erection of a light column

plot 29 without planning Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged permission the siting of Enforcement E/10/0010/A13 Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening caravans on the land for Notice. MCOU Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days permanent residential use Plots 32,33,34,and 35 - without planning permission Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged Enforcement E/10/0010/A14 the use of the site for the Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening Notice. MCOU stationing and storage of Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days mobile homes and caravans

plots 32,33,34, and 35 - Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged Operational E/10/0010/A15 without planning permission Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening development the erection of light columns Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days

Plots 36,37, and 38 - without Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged planning permission the Operational E/10/0010/A16 Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening laying of hard surfacing and development Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days the erection of light columns

Plots 39,40,41 - without planning permission the Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged permanent residential use of Enforcement E/10/0010/A17 Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening the site, and the stationing Notice. MCOU Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days and storage of touring caravans on the site

Plots 39,40,41 - without planning permission; the Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged erection of front boundary Operational E/10/0010/A18 Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening walls and gates; and the development Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days erection of light columns and sheds

Plots 42, and 43 - without Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged planning permission the Operational E/10/0010/A19 Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening

Page 175 construction of a large stable development Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days style building and shed Page 176 Plots 42 and 43 - without planning permission the use Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged of the site for permanent Enforcement E/10/0010/A20 Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening residential purposes; and for Notice. MCOU Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days the stationing of a mobile home and caravan

Plot 45 - without planning permission the use of the Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged Enforcement E/10/0010/A21 land for parking and storage Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening Notice. MCOU of cars and commercial Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days vehicles Plot 46 - without planning permission, the stationing of Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged Enforcement E/10/0010/A22 a mobile home used for Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening Notice. MCOU permanent residential Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days purposes

Plots 46 without planning permission the laying of hard Esbies estate Committee: 2nd Notices served Appeals Lodged Operational E/10/0010/A23 surfacing; the construction of Station Road June 2010, Target: 9th July 2010 Inquiry started 17.05.11 reconvening development front boundary walls and Sawbridgeworth 14th July 2011 again in 28th Febuary for three days gates

The erection of an Committee: 15th unauthorised residential Highlands. Friars December 2010, E/09/0443/A building as outlined and Road, Braughing, Op Dev 11th January 2011 Appeal dismissed. Now under JR Target: 26th hatched in blue on the Ware, SG11 2NS January 2011 attached plan Danes Lodge, 36 Committee: 22nd Little Berkhamsted Unauthorised development Operational September 2010, No Appeal. Not complied with. Fined E/10/0072/B Lane, Little 1st February 2011 from the land. development Target: 3rd £8,000 + in Court. Berkhamsted, November 2010 SG13 8LU. Committee: 22nd 7 Windmill Way, Unauthorised works to the Operational September 2010, Appeal dismissed 26.10.2010. E/10/0209/A Much Hadham, 6th October 2011 front development Target: 3rd Awaiting compliance Herts,SG10 6BG November 2010 Unauthorised change of use Appeal decision 27th January 2012 - from vacant land to use for A414 Fencing Appeal B succeeds in part on ground the storage of timber Briggens Home Committee: 17th (a) and products; the erection of Farm Briggens November 2010, planning permission for that part is E/09/0010/B Op Dev 12th April 2011 fencing and unauthorised Park Road Target: 29th granted, but otherwise the appeals fail engineering works and Stanstead Abbotts December 2010 and the enforcement notice is upheld adjustment of land levels at SG12 8LB subject to corrections - Compliance 414 timber 27-4-2012

Unauthorised change of use Appeal decision 27th January 2012 - from vacant land to use for A414 Fencing Appeal B succeeds in part on ground the storage of timber Briggens Home Committee: 17th (a) and products; the erection of Farm Briggens November 2010, E/09/0010/B MCOU 12th April 2011 planning permission for that part is fencing and unauthorised Park Road Target: 29th granted, but otherwise the appeals fail engineering works and Stanstead Abbotts December 2010 and the enforcement notice is upheld adjustment of land levels at SG12 8LB subject to corrections 414 timber

Without planning permission the use of a compound for Windowman and Committee: 20th the storage of redundant Sons Foxholes Operational October 2010, 12th November Appeal Lodged. Appeal dismissed. E/10/0364/B frames in connection with Farm London Road development Target: 1st 2010 Awaiting compliance the business of Hertford SG13 7NT December 2010 "Windowman and Sons".

Unauthorised engineering Committee: 17th Land off St Mary's Notice served 3rd December. Appeal operation to raise the levels Operational November 2010, E/10/0367/B Lane 3rd December 2011 Lodged. Application received for new of the land by the deposit of development Target: 29th Hertingfordbury road etc. spoil at land December 2010 Page 177 Without listed building Committee: 15th Notice served and appeal lodged. consent the attachment and 8 Market Place Listed Building December 2010, Appeal Dismissed. Unauthorised E/10/0269/B 11th January 2011 display of advertisments on Hertford SG14 1DF Enforcement Notice Target: 26th signs removed: but other signage now a grade II listed building January 2011 being displayed! Unauthorised installation of The Granary Committee: 9th Page 178 green telecommunications Windhill Bishops OPER February 2011, Notice to be served. New application E/10/0415/A equipment cabinet on a Stortford CM23 DEVELOPMENT Target: 23rd March received for replacement cabinet. concrete plinth 2ND 2011

Unauthorised change of use Committee: 9th of land and unauthorised 1 Henderson Place March 2011, Notice to be served. Planning refusal E/10/0095/A C of U erection of tree house and Epping Green Target: 20th April under appeal walkway 2011

6 Walled Garden, Committee: 25th change of use of communal E/11/0060/B Goldings Eastate, MCOU May 2011, Target: 25th July 2011 Notice served:Appeal Lodged garden to residential garden Hertford 6th July 2011 Committee: 25th Unauthorised erection of Valleyfields Notice served: No Appeal lodged. E/09/0363/A MCOU May 2011, Target: 7th July 2011 dwellinghouse Westland Green Complied. NFA 6th July 2011 Committee: 25th Unauthorised erection of a Notice served and appeal dismissed E/11/0020/B 15 London Road OD May 2011, Target: 5th July 2011 second storey rear extension 24/01/2012 6th July 2011 Frogmore Farm, Frogmore Hill, Committee: 22nd Unauthorised removal of Notice to be served. New proposals E/10/0303/B Watton At Stone, OD June 2011, Target: grade II listed front gates for new gates to be submitted Hertford, Herts, 3rd August 2011 SG14 3RR Unauthorised front boundary 53 Orchard Road, 10th August 2011 Awaiting outcome of appeal - site visit walls. Gates and piers with Tewin Committee: 20th by inspector still to be made lanterns and front canopy OP Dev July 2011, Target: extension 20th August 2011 E/10/0347/B Unauthorised residenital use 3 Pilgrims Row Material Change of SV to discuss/check compliance of an outbuilding Westmill Use Committee: 14th Buntingford Herts September, SG9 9LQ Target:`26th October 2011 E/11/0167/B E/11/0037/B Unauthorised signage 4a, 4b Star Street Procecution Committee 14th Legal Action to be taken - on hold Ware SG12 7Aa September, Target: until application that has been 26th October 2011 submitted has been determined E/11/0077/B The unauthorised use of a Pound Farm Material Change of Committee 12th 17th October Compliance date 17th January 2012. former agricultural buildings Hollybush Lane Use October Appeal Lodged - hearing on 14th for various commercial uses Datchworth February

E/10/0083/LB The unauthorised residential Swallowfield Farm Operational Committee 12th Served 22/11/11 Following the issue of a contravention use of an agricultural Church Road Development October notice further action is now to be building Epping Green Herts taken and permission was given to SG13 8NB serve a notice. This has been on hold following a state one complaint. However this will now be served before Janaury 2012. - Noticed served and an appeal has been lodged Inquiry to be held on 27th June 2012

P/11/0015/A Various unauthorised Within East Legal Proceedings Committee 9th Passed to the legal department for advertising within East Hertfordshire November Prosecution Hertfordshire District District

E/11/0174/A The unauthorised erection of 117 High Street Operational Committee 9th Notice to be served a partially roofed area of Buntingford Development November raised decking and the creation of a fenced enclosure

E/10/0036/A The unauthorised storage of Barleycroft Works Injunction 07/12/11 Legal Action to be taken - to seek an material on land at the the Barleycroft End application for grant of an injunction rear of the property Furneux Pelham Herts SG9 0LL

Without Planning permission Land to the north of Injunction served 21/11/11 notification to committee regarding th laying of a hard surface the Old Coach along with update of situation 1/02/2012

Page 179 Road Birch Green enforcement Hertford SG14 2LP notices Page 180

Section 215 Notices Case Address Notice Committee Issued Date Comment Number Type

Committee: 17th January 5th July 2010, owner E/06/0487/A 58 Maze Green Road Bishops Stortford S215 14th March 2007 2007 fined in her absence.

Plots 30, Esbies Estate, Station Road, Committee: 2nd June 2010, Notice takes effect on E/10/0010/A S215 9th July 2010 Sawbridgeworth Target: 14th July 2011 9th August 2010

Plots 31, Esbies Estate, Station Road, Notice takes effect on E/10/0010/A S216 MCOU and OD 9th July 2010 Sawbridgeworth 9th August 2010 Committee: 25th August 39, Grace Gardens, Sawbridgeworth, 17th November Compliance by E/08/0254/A 2010, Target: 6th October CM23 3EU 2010 17.03.11 2010 Owner arrested 58, Maze Green Road, Bishop's Committee: 16th December 25th January and brought to E/06/0487/A S215 Non compliance again Stortford, CM232PL 2009 2010 Court. Fined £5740 + costs. Others Case Number Problem Address Notice Type Served Date of Comment Date Effect E/08/0463/A Dowsetts Farm sent to legal request for prosecution

E/09/0510/B 17 Coltsfoot summons issued MCOU and OD Page 181 Page 182

SERVED PCNs Case Problem Address Served Date Comment Number The use of the site for land opposite brackenbury house 1 06/01/10 residential purposes Whitehill Dane End The use of caravans or mobile Land at Bayford Wood Bucks Alley Little 2 homes on land for residentail 14/01/10 Berhamstead purposes Westley Wood Farm House hertford 3 use of land MCOU and OD Road Tewin Residential annexe within 4 Highland Friars 21/01/10 curtilage The creation of a residential 5 62 mangrove road 05/02/10 unit 6 various land at 17 coltsfoot lane 08/03/10 use of private residential 7 34 walnut drive 31/03/10 dwellinghouse fro business 8 Esbies 11/05/10 9 Esbies 11/05/10 10 Esbies 11/05/10 11 Esbies 11/05/10 12 Esbies 11/05/10 13 Esbies 11/05/10 14 Esbies 11/05/10 15 Esbies 11/05/10 16 Esbies 11/05/10 17 Esbies 11/05/10 18 Esbies 11/05/10 19 Esbies 11/05/10 20 Esbies 11/05/10 21 Esbies 11/05/10 creation of self contained 22 27 Raffin Green 21/05/10 residential unit 23 airport parking Lancaster Garages 06/07/10 24 airport parking Lancaster Garages 22/07/10 25 airport parking Lancaster Garages 23/07/10 The permanent and or Swallowfields Farm, Church Road, 26 temporary use of part of the 28/07/10 Epping Green above land without planning permission the use of the premises, a 27 The Orchard Buntingford 30/07/10 dwellinghouse, as a residential institution residential use of part of the 28 Land at Windyridge farm, Hertford 04/10/10 land and tepee creation of sel contained 29 3 Pilgrims Row 05/10/10 residential unit Occupation of a residential The Annexe, The Old Laundry, 71 30 03/02/11 annexe Eastwick Hall Lane, eastwick 31 Commercial Use of land Land adj 1 Butrtermilk Hall Cottages 07/07/11 32 Commercial Use of land Unit 3 Pound Farm, Datchworth 19/07/11 33 Commercial Use of land Unit 4B Pound Farm Datchworth 19/07/11 34 Commercial Use of land Unit 4C Pound Farm Datchworth 19/07/11 35 Commercial Use of land Unit 9 Pound Farm Datchworth 19/07/11 36 Commercial Use of land Unit 9A Pound Farm Datchworth 19/07/11 37 Commercial Use of land Unit 10A Pound Farm Datchworth 19/07/11 Without planning permission the use of a compound for the storage of redundant frames Windowman and Sons Foxholes Farm 38 19/07/11 in connection with the London Road Hertford SG13 7NT business of "Windowman and Sons". Page 183 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 184 Agenda Item 7 EAST HERTS COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 29 FEBRUARY 2012

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

7. CONFIRMATION OF EAST HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL TREE PRESERVATION ORDER (No. 2) 2011 P/TPO 558 ‘CHRIST CHURCH VICARAGE, 15 HANBURY CLOSE, WARE,HERTS’

WARD(S) AFFECTED: Ware Christchurch Ward

Purpose/Summary of Report

• A Tree Preservation Order (No. 2) 2011 Ref., P/TPO 558 was served under Section 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the 6 th September 2011. This order had the immediate effect of protecting a significant mature Deodar cedar rooted in the front garden of Christ Church Vicarage for a period of six months, and it is now submitted to Committee for confirmation and permanent effect.

RECOMMENDATION FOR DECISION: that

(A) Tree Preservation Order (No.2) 2011 P/TPO 558 be confirmed as an opposed order and that the Director of Neighbourhood Services be authorized to bring it into operation.

1.0 Background

1.1 A formal application for tree work was received on 29 th October 2010 from Herts Tree Care to deadwood and clean out the cedar tree and thin out six low main limbs. The application was submitted whilst the vicarage was let to other tenants. The Arboricultural Officer had a site meeting with Mr Brian O’Kane the proprietor of Herts Tree Care. Mr O’Kane agreed on site that there was little wrong with the tree apart from some branches which could be reduced back slightly as they were almost in contact with the roof and chimney of the adjacent property at No. 14.

1.2 On the 9 th February 2011 Officers learned that the Diocese of St. Albans had changed its mind on the cedar tree and now wanted the tree to be felled to ground level. A second formal application was not made to fell the tree but dialogue continued with Herts Tree Care as to what works could be done to the tree. It was clear

Page 185 that the tree was under threat of removal so a provisional Tree Preservation Order was served in expediency on 10 th February 2011.

1.3 On 9th March 2011, a letter of was received objecting to the serving of the provisional Tree Preservation Order from the Reverend Hookway the Vicar designate on the following grounds:

• The closeness of the tree to the vicarage and potential damage to this property, visitors and vehicles. • The closeness of the tree and branches to neighbouring properties and potential damage. • The potential risk to pedestrians, cars, road blockage and other properties in the area, if a branch or the tree were to fall. • The size of the tree in relation to other properties and trees in the area being inappropriate, as well as the tree having outgrown its position as a front garden tree. • The obstruction to visitors to the vicarage which is his place of work as well as his home. • The objection about the size of the tree received by the church from the neighbours. • The blockage of light to the property and surrounding properties.

2.0 Report

2.1 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has considered each objection and can advise as follows: • Often large trees are in close proximity to dwellings and places of work. If trees are maintained on a regular basis (every three to five years) then they may often be retained safely. • If tree branches encroach towards buildings they may be reduced back to create a clearance with adjoining property of 2 Metres without the need to make a formal application as this would be considered abating a nuisance. • The tree should be inspected by an appropriate expert on a three year cycle or after adverse weather events. • The landscape of towns and cities would be all the poorer if the only trees in view were small in stature and they were only observed with difficulty. • The Council has not received any complaints about the size of the tree and no other formal objection to the serving of the Tree Preservation Order has been made.

Page 186 • Reduced light is not a justification to remove a tree of significant amenity value. The tree is to the north of The Vicarage and to the north-west of No. 14 Hanbury Close. Both properties receive sunlight as they have south facing rear gardens. There will be some loss of daylight to the front of both properties due to shading by the canopy of the tree. The tree is an evergreen tree and therefore cannot be thinned of live branches like some deciduous broadleaved trees.

3.0 Confirming the Tree Preservation Order

3.1 In determining whether the Tree Preservation Order is to be confirmed it is requested that the Committee consider the amenity value of the cedar tree, paying special attention to the desirability of preserving the character or appearance of the designated Ware Conservation Area.

3.2 The Arboricultural Officer gives the following reasons for confirming the Tree Preservation Order:

3.3 This cedar tree is clearly visible from New Road and Hanbury Close. The tree in its present condition is suitable for the particular setting and sits well with the presence of nearby Christ Church. Using the Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation orders – TEMPO the trees score 17 points. The Decision Guide states that a score of 16+ definitely merits the making or confirmation of a defensible Tree Preservation Order.

3.4 The removal of the cedar tree would be detrimental to the landscape character and appearance of the Ware Conservation Area. The tree provides a level of public amenity value to local residents and visitors to the area.

3.5 The serving and confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order on the cedar tree would ensure retention of a tree of significant public amenity value for the next 20-40 years.

3.6 The District Council has a policy to protect trees because of their amenity value and the contribution that they make to the landscape character of our towns and villages.

3.7 It is therefore recommended that the Order be confirmed as an opposed order.

Page 187 Background Papers: Application for tree work Ref: 382426 received 29 th October 2010. ‘Tree Preservation Orders: A Guide to the Law and Good Practice’.

Contact Member: Malcolm Alexander – Executive Member for Community Safety and Environment.

Contact Officer: Malcolm Amey, Arboricultural Officer, Extn: 1537.

Report Author: Malcolm Amey, Arboricultural Officer, Extn: 1537.

Page 188 ESSENTIAL REFERENCE PAPER ‘A’

Contribution to Pride in East Herts the Council’s Improving standards of the built neighbourhood and Corporate environmental management in our towns and villages. Priorities/ Objectives Shaping now, shaping the future (delete as Safeguard and enhance our unique mix of rural and appropriate): urban communities, ensuring sustainable, economic and social opportunities including the continuation of effective development control and other measures.

Consultation: There have been no letters of support for the serving of the Tree Preservation Order but the order was only served on The Estates Department of the Diocese of St. Albans, Christchurch Vicarage and No. 14, Hanbury Close. Legal: Confirmation of Tree Preservation Orders is a legal requirement of the planning acts and is in compliance with the regulations. Financial: There are no financial implications in confirming this order. Human None. Resource: Risk None. Management:

Page 189 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 190 Agenda Item 8 EAST HERTS COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 29 FEBRUARY 2012

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

8. CONFIRMATION OF EAST HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL TREE PRESERVATION ORDER(No. 8) 2011 P/TPO 564 ‘WOODLAND TO THE SOUTH OF RECTORY FARM, MEESDEN HERTS’

WARD(S) AFFECTED: Braughing Ward

Purpose/Summary of Report

• A woodland Tree Preservation Order (No. 8) 2011 Ref., P/TPO 564 was served under Section 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the 6th September 2011. This order had the immediate effect of protecting an area of woodland for period of six months, but it has to be submitted to the Development Control Committee for confirmation and for permanent effect.

RECOMMENDATION FOR DECISION: that

(A) Tree Preservation Order (No.8) 2011 P/TPO 564 be confirmed as an opposed order and that the Director of Neighbourhood Services be authorised to bring it into operation.

1.0 Background

1.1 The piece of woodland measuring some 1.1 acres (.45 ha) was sold at auction by Cheffins auctioneers during the spring of 2011. In the auction particulars the land was described as: -

• Mature hardwood woodland with road frontage • Of interest to Wildlife Groups and amenity buyers

1.2 The freehold of the land was sold with vacant possession to a Mr Shajeed Shaikh, who later made contact with the Forestry Commission regarding whether a Felling Licence was required to fell a small number of trees. On 22 nd June 2011, the Councils Arboricultural Officer received concerns from a member of the public, that trees were being felled in the woodland.

Page 191 1.3 At the site visit it was noted that only a small number of trees had been felled to ground level and that heavy rain had forced a halt to the felling. Whist the Arboricultural Officer was on site Mr Khan the owner’s agent arrived and a brief discussion was had as to the reasons for the felling. It was later understood that the Forestry Commission were also aware and were in contact with Mr Khan.

1.4 On 11 th July 2011, the Arboricultural Officer was made aware that more felling of trees had occurred and that the work carried out was not what had been initially approved by the Forestry Commission. The Arboricultural Officer made a further site visit on 30 th August in which he carried out a brief survey of the remaining mature trees on the land. After some consultation with Officers of the Forestry Commission a decision was taken to serve a provisional Tree Preservation Order.

1.5 The provisional woodland Tree Preservation Order was served, both on the land on posts and by Ist class post to the owner and the owner’s agent on the 6 th September 2011. The effect of a woodland order is that it protects seedlings, saplings, cut stumps (that will regenerate - as in coppicing), pollarded trees and the remaining mature trees on the land.

1.6 In consultation with Officers in Development Control after the Tree Preservation Order was served it became apparent that a planning application for a bungalow had already been submitted by Mr Shaikh. The application documentation was withdrawn by the applicant.

1.7 Subsequent to the serving of the Tree Preservation Order a planning application was submitted to the Council, Ref: 3/11/1829/FP and registered on 3rd November 2011. This was a proposal for an agricultural building for use as free range chicken, egg production unit. Extensive landscape advice was provided by the Council’s Landscape Officer on the impact of the building on the woodland and the development was refused on 14 th December 2011.

1.8 A second and similar planning application for a larger agricultural building within the woodland has been received and registered on 6th February 2012 and is currently at the consultation stage.

Page 192 1.9 Importance of Meesdenhall Woods

The area of woodland in question adjoins Meesdenhall Woods from which it is divided by a ditch of ancient origin. Meesdenhall Woods and the land in question have been identified as a Wildlife Site of local or regional importance.

1.10 Meesdenhall Woods would be classified as a plantation on an ancient woodland site (PAWS). There are a few remaining spruce trees in the southern part of the mainly native broadleaved woodland; the full description of the wood is contained in the Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust - Wildlife Site (16/009) survey of 22 nd June 2000.

1.11 The land protected by the woodland Tree Preservation Order was included in the survey of 29 th June 2000 by the Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust and the findings for the northern compartment are as follows:

• “Northern compartment: Land in separate ownership This small area of open woodland is dominated by a number of large Beech, Horse Chestnut, Sycamore, and Ash on the west side and bounded by a dense mixed hedge to the east. The open area in the centre is dominated by abundant Stinging Nettle. The sparse ground flora includes Wood Millet, Bluebell and Cleavers (f), Dog’s Mercury, Clustered Dock, Ground Ivy, Arum, and Cow Parsley(o), Dog Violet (la), Herb Robert, Nipplewort, and Wood Aven (r). There is scrubby Blackthorn, Hawthorn, Hazel, and Elder along the deep boundary ditch with single specimens of Dog Rose, and Gooseberry and frequent Ivy”.

1.12 The presence of herbaceous indicator species such as Dog’s Mercury indicate that the site is likely to be ancient semi-natural woodland.

1.13 The woodland in question is on the Forestry Commissions National Inventory of Woodlands.

1.14 The Council has specific policies set out in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007, to protect or encourage better management of trees or woodland or through replanting schemes to strengthen landscape character or to improve landscape condition. The specific policies are ENV10 Planting New Trees,

Page 193 ENV11 Protection of Existing Hedgerows and Trees and ENV14 Local Sites.

1.15 The most pertinent policy in considering the confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order is ENV14.

1.16 A further consideration is that, woodland is an irreplaceable resource of great importance for its wildlife, its history and the contribution it makes to our diverse landscapes. Local Authorities have a vital role in ensuring its conservation, in particular through the planning system. The Development Control Committee, is asked to note the Council’s obligation to protect woodland(s) from damage or loss by unfavourable development proposals. This is with particular regard to the requirements under PPS9 which states:

• “Local Planning Authorities should not grant planning permission for any development that would result in its loss (woodland/ancient woodland) or deterioration unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location outweigh the loss of the woodland habitat”.

1.17 Objection to the Tree Preservation Order

1.18 On 16 th September 2011 the Council received a Claim for loss of agricultural earnings, resultant from the serving of the provisional Tree Preservation Order by East Herts Council. A similar claim was received on the 21st September. All letters from Mr Shaikh were answered fully. In the statement by Mr Shaikh, his objection to the serving of the provisional Tree Preservation Order was on the following grounds:

• The Tree Preservation Order has stopped all the agricultural works on the land • Livestock will not be able to be kept on the land during the period the provisional Tree Preservation Order is in force. • The Tree Preservation Order has caused a loss of the owners agricultural business • The loss of the agricultural business is a breach of the owners human rights • Tree Preservation Orders should only be served on trees that cannot be eaten by any agricultural livestock kept on the land • The trees are infected with bracket fungus

Page 194 2.0 Report

2.1 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has considered each objection and can only advise on the following points: • The Council is not opposed to appropriate woodland management practices carried out in agreement with the Forestry Commission to manage woodland in a sustainable way. • Tree works can still be applied for on completion of a formal application for tree works. The applicant would have the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate in respect of any tree works that are refused following the issue of a Refusal Notice by the Council. • The LPA's consent is not required for cleaning the crowns of trees of dead, dying and defective branches or removing a tree stated to be in a dead, dying or dangerous condition.

• It is appreciated that trees may need to be felled for arboricultural reasons (dead, dying or dangerous) and that clearance can make way for new planting and restocking.

• The unfenced woodland beside the public highway is unsuitable for keeping livestock of any description. There is no grass or forage on site for livestock. Many of the indigenous plants (i.e. Dog’s Mercury) are toxic to livestock.

• There are various bracket fungi of arboricultural significance. Such fungi are common and a natural part of decay and renewal. There is no method of chemical control or sanitation or woodland management to eradicate such fungi.

2.2 Local support for the serving of the Tree Preservation Order

2.3 After the provisional Tree Preservation Order was served the Council received thirty individual letters in support of the Councils action in serving the order. The majority of letters are from the residents of Meesden with many letters bearing one or more signatures.

2.4 Many of the letters refer to the need to maintain the woodland as a complete unit and for it to be retained as habitat for widlife.

2.5 The number of letters received, demonstrates local support for

Page 195 the serving and confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order.

2.6 In determining whether the TPO is to be confirmed it is requested that the Committee consider the amenity value of the remaining trees and the amenity value of the restocked woodland as directed by the Forestry Commission. Members should consider the desirability of preserving the special character or appearance of the rural area and woodland identified as a Wildlife Site.

2.7 The Arboricultural Officer offers the following reasons for confirming the Tree Preservation Order:

2.8 If the Tree Preservation Order is not confirmed the remaining trees can be felled without further consultation with East Herts Council providing that a Felling Licence is obtained from the Forestry Commission.

2.9 The woodland adjoins the public highway adjacent to Rectory Farm, so is clearly visible to the public. The remaining trees comprise mature horse chestnut, oak, ash, beech, sycamore, field maple and hawthorn. The condition of the mature trees is variable and their retention span in years is assessed as 10-20 years, so they are suitable for the protection afforded by the order. The woodland contributes towards the verdant character of the road junction by their height, crown spread and collective impact. These trees are suitable for their particular setting and sit well with the main bulk of Meesdenhall Woods. Using the Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation orders – TEMPO the remaining trees score sufficient points (12) to merit the confirmation of a TPO which is defensible.

2.10 The removal of the remaining trees would be detrimental to Meesdenhall Woods and the landscape character of Meesden. The woodland provides public amenity value to local residents and visitors to the area.

2.11 The serving and confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order on the land and woodland would ensure retention and natural regeneration of this piece of woodland that directly adjoins Meesdenhall Woods a locally identified Wildlife Site.

2.12 The District Council has a policy to protect trees because of their amenity value and the contribution that they make to the landscape character of our towns and villages.

Page 196 2.13 In serving the provisional order the action taken was considered as appropriate. Confirmation of the order would safeguard against negative impacts on the Wildlife Site (16/009) Meesdenhall Woods.

Background Papers: Cheffins auctioneers details of lot listing. Retrieved 19/09/2011 Extensive Development Control Landscape Advice Re: 3/11/1829/FP. Summary Report for Officer Delegated Decisions Re: 3/11/1829/FP. Decision Notice Re: 3/11/1829/FP. ‘Tree Preservation Orders: ‘A Guide to the Law and Good Practice’ East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007. Landscape Character Assessment –Planning Policy Team. September 2007. Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust - Wildlife Site (16/009) survey of 22 nd June 2000.

Contact Member: Malcolm Alexander, Executive Member for Community Safety and Environment.

Contact Officer: Malcolm Amey, Arboricultural Officer, Extn: 1537.

Report Author: Malcolm Amey, Arboricultural Officer, Extn: 1537.

Page 197 ESSENTIAL REFERENCE PAPER ‘A’

Consultation: There have been thirty individual letters in support of the TPO from local residents some bearing more than one signature:

• The woodland constitute a very significant and positive feature in the locality • The woodland provides habitat for wildlife • The woodland has been a feature of the area for many years . • The auctioned land should be restocked with trees to return it to its previous condition and character. • Consultation with the Forestry Commission regarding the importance of this part of Meesdenhall Woods.

Legal: Confirmation of Tree Preservation Orders is a legal requirement of the planning acts and is in compliance with the regulations. Financial: There are no financial implications in confirming this order.

Human None Resource: Risk Mr Shaikh has submitted a claim for loss of earning from Management: the future development of an agricultural business at the site. No such business existed at the time of the serving of the Tree Preservation Order. The claim has been refuted. Under the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) compensation is not payable for the loss of development value.

Page 198