There was a change of membership for this meeting:

Councillor Aron replaced Councillor Watkin, Councillor Crout replaced Councillor Derbyshire and Councillor Dhindsa replaced Councillor Bell.

Councillor Sharpe explained that he had supported the aim of supplying more schools in the area.  He added that whilst he had spoken to both sides in the debate on the application at minute number 70, he had not expressed his own views.

Councillor Aron said that she had expressed her support for a school in the Lanchester Building but had made no decision on the matter; she advised that she had come to the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Joynes advised that she supported the provision of additional schools in the area but had expressed no opinion on the application at minute number 70.

Councillor Johnson informed the meeting that he had received several e-mails regarding the same application but had also not stated any opinion on the matter.

Councillor Crout had similarly received e-mails from the Cassiobury Residents Association but had had no discussions on the issue.

Councillor Dhindsa said that he had commented on the shortage of schools but had expressed no opinion on the application involving the Lanchester Building.

Councillors Brandon and Williams echoed other Members’ disclosures saying that they had both received e-mails on this subject but had given no opinion on the matter. 

The Chair agreed that it was important to be clear on the above comments from the members of the committee.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 January 2014 to be submitted and signed.  (All minutes are available on the Council’s website.)

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 January 2014 were submitted and signed.

One application report is included on this agenda for decision.  This is not within the Government’s target dates for determination of applications.  

On 21 January 2014 there were no applications over eight weeks not yet determined but under consideration by the Development Management Section Head. 

RESOLVED –

that the report be noted.

An application for:

The conversion of the building for use as a primary school with nursery, including two 3 storey rear extensions and alterations to elevations and new entrance canopy.

The formation of external play areas, including new surfacing, seating, fencing and gates, and alterations to landscaping.

The erection of fencing around the boundaries of the site.

Alterations to vehicular access to West Herts College and the provision of 7 car parking spaces, coach lay-by, cycle shelter and new footpaths.

The Chair explained that two speakers had registered to address the Committee regarding this application.  He advised that, in a change from usual procedure, after each speaker had concluded there would be a period of 10 minutes when Committee members would have the opportunity to question the speaker in order to clarify any points on which they wished additional explanation. 

The Committee had received a report of the Head of Regeneration and Development including the relevant planning history of the site and details of ninety-nine responses to letters sent with regard to the application.  Two respondents supported the application; the other senders had detailed their objections to the proposals.

The Major Cases Manager drew attention to the Update sheet which advised that, since publication of the report, 35 letters had been received from local residents objecting to the application for the same reasons as those detailed on pages six and seven of the agenda.  The Update sheet also advised of 33 letters received in support of the application.  The Major Cases Manager noted, however, that none of these letters contained full addresses.  It had proved possible to identify from whence some had come and the breakdown was included in the Update sheet.    

The Major Cases Manager also drew attention to the response from the Cassiobury Residents’ Association following their meeting on the previous evening; this was also included in full on the Update sheet.  This response raised the same points as those already included in the report.

In conclusion the Major Cases Manager noted the amended drawings on display in the Council Chamber and the amendments, as detailed in the Update sheet, to Recommendations 2, 9, 10, 11 and 14

The Chair invited Mr Tim Hollingsworth to speak to the Committee. 

Mr Hollingsworth explained that he lived on the Cassiobury estate and that whilst he had no objections to the conversion of the Lanchester Building for use as a primary school, he had grave concerns regarding highway issues. 

Mr Hollingsworth noted that entrance to the estate was via only two roads; these roads were already used to capacity and were exacerbated at peak times due to the recent expansion of the Cassiobury Primary Schools.  He believed that the traffic consultation had not taken these additional number of pupils into account and that the proposal would increase the pre-existing congestion. 

Mr Hollingsworth considered that it would be unwise to allow access to the school by reopening the footpath between Cassiobury Drive and the Lanchester Building, advising that a better option would be to create access from Hempstead Road.  He re-iterated his belief that the traffic consultation had not taken all issues into consideration including the function and operation of the two sets of traffic lights on Hempstead Road. 

Mr Hollingsworth then addressed issues of parking and stated that nine parking spaces would be insufficient for the 45 staff intended for the school.  He noted that there was ongoing negotiation for spaces in the Avenue car park but that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.