Agenda item

Recommended for Refusal.

Mr Twemlow addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Anderson and Mr Roberts spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/15/0149/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor J Mayes, as the local ward Member, commented that the opinion of local residents seemed to her to be split pretty much 50/50.  She expressed concern that whilst the proposed additional roundabout on the A1170 would cause traffic calming it would also cause some motorists to divert from the roundabout along Cautherly Lane and Lower Road then into Ware.

Councillor Mayes stated that these were very narrow roads that were unsuitable for large amounts of traffic and she was also concerned that the Bengeo rat run could be reproduced in this area.  She commented that she and local residents wanted to preserve the rural environment of Great Amwell and she wondered whether it would be appropriate to attach a condition that restricted the opening hours of the food store to match those of the Van Hage Garden Centre.

Councillor Mayes concluded that there was a separate exit from the Van Hage site onto the B1502 and she commented on whether more traffic could be diverted that way rather than on the A1170.  She stated that her concerns regarding the traffic impact were purely conjecture and she requested that the Committee take her points into consideration.

The Director referred Members to the additional representations summary and he provided a detailed breakdown of all of the additional representations.  Members were advised that the planning issues were relatively clear cut and the significant support for this application from potential customers was not a material planning consideration and the popularity of potential retail operators was also not a material consideration.

The Director reminded Members that the application was for an A1 use class operator and the planning merits of the application had to be assessed as for any retail operator according to relevant planning policies.  The Committee was reminded of the clear Green Belt restrictions although the Van Hage buildings were already designated as a major developed site.

The Director advised that the proposed development was outside of the major developed site designation and would extend the footprint of the existing building.  Officers considered that it was not credible to argue that this application would not adversely impact on the site’s openness and it was a matter of fact that the application would have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt.  Members were advised that recent appeal decisions in Great Amwell had confirmed this point.

The Director confirmed that there would have to be material planning considerations that amounted to the very special circumstances that clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt for this application to be approved.  The Committee was reminded that this was an out of town location and Members must consider the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sequential test of retail impact. 

The Director advised that retail experts had stated that the lack of retail need for this scheme in the District would have an adverse impact on retail in Hertford, Hoddesdon and Ware as customers could only come from the existing anchor stores in those towns.  Members were advised that the access to the site was poor even for the occupants of Great Amwell and the site was unsustainable as it could only be accessed by private car.

The Director concluded that the application represented an unsustainable form of development that was contrary to local and national planning policy.  Members were therefore advised to refuse the application due to the local and national planning harm. 

Councillor P Ruffles stated that his primary concerns were damage to town centres and sustainability.  He agreed with Officers that there was no justification in terms of green belt policy for supporting this application.

Councillor Ruffles referred to the exceptional vulnerability of Great Amwell and the surrounding countryside to urban engulfment.  He disagreed with the views of Great Amwell Parish Council and he failed to understand how the Parish Council had reached those views. 

Councillor Ruffles emphasised that Great Amwell had no other retail economy whereas Hoddesdon, Hertford and Ware had retail economies and he was concerned that these would be damaged by this application in an out of town Green Belt location.  He stressed that the built fabric of the historic buildings in Hertford and Ware would decline alongside the retail environment and he would therefore be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor G Jones commented that the fundamental problem was that this application constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  He asked Officers if they had information from Hertfordshire Highways as to why they had used the word “severe” in their submission detailed in the additional representations summary.

The Director stated that there had been a lot of submissions regarding the traffic impact on Amwell Hill and London Road roundabouts.  Members were advised that Hertfordshire Highways were confident that additional congestion at the Amwell Road roundabout could be managed but not for the London Road roundabout.  The Director advised that Highways Officers could not be confident that there would not be a severe impact addressed by sustainable transport mitigation.

Councillor M Newman stated that the key consideration was what was right for the greater good of East Herts.  He commented that whilst he could see the attraction of this application he believed that the Officer’s recommendation should be supported.  He referred to there being Council policies that precluded development in the Green Belt and promoted town centre retail development.

Councillor M Alexander stated that he was very disappointed with the negativity of the report and he did not believe the key issue was Green Belt as he did not feel that this site was Green Belt.  He referred to the key issue of the sequential test as well as the future occupants of retail space in Bircherley Green.

Councillor Alexander commented on the lack of any impact on Bishop’s Stortford, Hertford and Ware when a new supermarket had opened in Hoddesdon.  He emphasised that Hertford would not die if this application was approved as another retailer would occupy the vacant retail space in Bircheley Green.

Councillor Alexander concluded that the application should be approved and he reiterated his view that this was a Brownfield site.  He accepted that there was a town centre first policy but he was confident that Hertford and Ware would not die and he was also confident that the applicant and Officers could work together to secure appropriate conditions.

Councillor P Moore stated that she had approached this application with an open mind and she had listened carefully to the debate in respect of what were wholly subjective judgements.  She stated that she was supportive of an application that would not harm the District’s town centres.

Councillor E Bedford emphasised that this application would generate employment and this was very significant for the Ware area.  He stated that this was not a Green Belt site due to the commercial nature of the retail use as well as the seasonal ice rink.

Councillor Bedford acknowledged the issue of traffic but did not feel that the additional A1170 roundabout would cause a big problem.  He concluded that the new roundabout would calm the flow of traffic and the application would enhance the environment of the area.  He emphasised that this sort of development was needed and this was a good scheme.

Councillor N Symonds stated that she had given a lot of thought to this development.  She pointed out that Van Hage was really a small department store that sold virtually everything.  She concluded that she did not feel that the proposed development would be detrimental and she would be supporting this application.

Councillor Alexander commented that as regards special circumstances in respect of the Green Belt there had be to employment opportunities to match the residential development planned all over the District to avoid East Herts towns becoming dormitory settlements.  He believed that the application would result in a commercial marriage that would save energy, reduce car journeys and would create a retail experience people could enjoy.

Councillor Symonds commented that Great Amwell Parish Council had not objected to this application so long as there was no pharmacy, post office or doctor’s surgery within the store.  She queried whether this was within the remit of planning.  The Director commented that this was an area that could be controlled by conditions but the applicant could apply to vary any of the imposed conditions in future.

Councillor K Crofton commented that Bircherley Green had to act in order to encourage new retailers.  He stated that this application would not harm the Green Belt or the openness of the countryside.  He concluded that the traffic impact had not yet been the subject of a full dialogue with Hertfordshire Highways and he was of the view that all of the outstanding issues could be addressed by conditions and a decent Section 106 legal agreement.

The Director emphasised that Councillor Crofton was correct in that the issue of sustainable transport and traffic was unresolved with meetings taking place in the week prior to this meeting and also this week.  Hertfordshire Highways had not had time to fully assess their current position so were maintaining an objection but further detailed consideration by Highways Officers might change this situation.

The Director emphasised that the site was designated as Green Belt in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.  He reiterated his clear cut advice was that there would be very significant harm due to the reduction in openness resulting from the proposed introduction of new buildings of a significant scale.

Members were advised that the current buildings were surrounded by land that was open in nature and this openness would be significantly and adversely affected by the proposed development.  The Director stressed that the NPPF referred to whether the harm caused by a development and any other harm was clearly outweighed. 

Members were reminded that Officers had been given specialist advice that there would be a harmful impact in respect of the retail situation on the retail centres of Hertford, Hoddesdon and Ware.  The Director emphasised that should any significant retail operator vacate a town centre then there would clearly be an impact on the East Herts town centres.

In response to a query from Councillor Crofton regarding the Section 106 legal agreement, the Director advised that this matter would be brought back to Members if the Committee supported this application.  Officers would also refer the matter to the Secretary of State due to the Green Belt location and the issue of the scale of the proposed additional retail floor space.

In response to a query from Councillors Symonds and Alexander regarding paragraph 4.1 of the report, the Director commented that the views of Great Amwell Parish Council could be covered by conditions subject to the usual 6 standard tests for conditions but there remained an element of longer term risk that conditions would be challenged.

Councillor M Alexander proposed and Councillor K Crofton seconded, a motion that application 3/15/0149/FP be granted and to ensure continuity, Officers report back to the Development Management Committee in respect of conditions and a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to cover any matters relevant to the mitigation of the impacts of the development.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/15/0149/FP, planning permission be granted;

(B)   to ensure continuity, Officers report back to the Development Management Committee in respect of conditions and a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to cover any matters relevant to the mitigation of the impacts of the development; and

(C)   the application be referred to the Secretary of State as required by the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009.