Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Marshall addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr O’Sullivan spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/14/2292/FP, subject to referral to the Secretary of State in respect of the loss of the playing field and the applicant or successor in title entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor R Standley, as the local ward Member, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.  She read out a letter from the Secretary of State and drew the Committee’s attention to the resolution of Ware Town Council to object to the application.  She referred to traffic congestion, parking concerns and the loss of playing fields.  She urged the Committee to support the views of Ware Town Council and refuse the application.

The Director summarised the details of the application and set out the location of the site.  Members were reminded that there had been a large number of letters of support and objection and the Committee was provided with a summary of the issues that had been raised.

The Director referred to policy LRC1 and advised Members that the loss of playing fields was acceptable in the light of the provision of the new sports facility.  In response to a query from the Committee Chairman, the Director confirmed that should the application be approved, it would be referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Councillor J Kaye referred to the lack of bus services in the area and stated his concern that there would be insufficient car parking provision.  He also referred to whether the traffic survey was done before or after Asda opened on 14 May 2015.  He expressed concerns regarding the selling of part an educational establishment for housing.

Councillor D Oldridge referred to the major issue of traffic and he commented on whether Park Road was wide enough to accommodate the extra traffic.  He also queried why the applicant was seeking 47 new dwellings in terms of whether a lesser number would be acceptable.

The Director confirmed that the application complied with affordable housing policy and the applicant had made it clear that 47 units was the number needed to fund the development.  In response to comments from Councillors K Warnell and T Page, the Director reminded Members they had to determine the application based on the relevant policies of the development plan the NPPF and other relevant material considerations.

Members were advised that the application was policy compliant in that the loss of the green space was mitigated by the proposed replacement facility which offered provision which would be equal to or better than the previous use.

Councillor K Brush sought and was given some clarification regarding the figures and percentages in respect of affordable housing.  The Director confirmed that 40% of the proposed development would be affordable housing and there would be 11 units for rent and 8 for shared ownership.  Members were referred to paragraph 1.3 of the report submitted for details regarding the mix of units on the site.

Councillor P Ruffles commented on how much weight should be given to the response from Sport England.  The Director confirmed that Policy LRC1 of the Local Plan was policy consistent with the relevant statements in the NPPF.  Members were also given a summary of the position that had been taken by Sport England in that its policy approach was always to resist the loss of open playing fields and ancillary uses. 

Councillor Ruffles queried whether Officers had data that detailed the traffic assessment figures for traffic linked to the playing fields and the traffic for community use.  The Director acknowledged the different usage patterns but stated that Officers had no figures to present to Members on this matter.

Councillor J Cartwright emphasised that the community gained far more than what was being lost as part of this application.  He commented that this site would be a desirable place to live and he did not see what residents would need a car for due to the proximity to supermarkets, a major employer in GSK and due to the rail and bus transport links.

Councillor M Casey believed that this application was contradictory in that paragraphs 7.7 and 7.9 of the report indicated that there was limited demand for indoor provision whilst this application was for an indoor provision at the expense of outdoor playing fields.

The Director reminded Members not to lose site of the need for housing delivery and the need to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing development land in East Herts.  He stated that there was a sustainable element to this site, but it was acknowledged that all sites had an impact and balancing those issues was part of the decision making process.

Members were provided with a detailed breakdown of the provisions of local plan policy LRC1.  The Committee was reminded that around 20 to 25% of the outdoor space at the school would be sacrificed for an indoor provision with quality facilities and there would still be a significant amount of outdoor sports provision at the school.

The Director concluded by reminding Members that the proposed parking provision of 89 spaces was close to the required provision of 91 spaces.  He stated that the impact on Park Road was acknowledged but the overall impact of the scheme was far outweighed by the benefits of the application.

The Committee Chairman commented that the proposed replacement sports provision was far better than the pitches that were being lost.  After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, there being an equality of votes, the Chairman exercised his casting vote in support of the Officer’s recommendation.

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/14/2292/FP, subject to referral to the Secretary of State in respect of the loss of the playing field and the applicant or successor in title entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.