Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/17/1537/FUL, subject to a legal agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head summarised the application and detailed the relevant planning history.  Members were reminded of the policy requirement to maintain sufficient sites for employment use in light of the significant increase in housing sites detailed in the District Plan.

The Head stated that Officers had assessed the shortcomings of the site in terms of its attractiveness as an employment use as well as the proximity of watercourses and the issue of flooding.  Members were advised that the likelihood of the site being utilised for employment was in some doubt.

The Head stated that the application was largely acceptable in policy terms.  The site was close to the Hertford town centre but had been perceived to be remote from the town centre due to the busy A414 Gascoyne Way.  The site was separated from West Street properties by a watercourse and the intervening green space.

The Head advised that the usual preferred linkage to the town centre was compromised to a degree by the significant barrier feature of Gascoyne Way.  Officers felt that, on balance, the application would not adversely affect the town centre core retailers and would not adversely affect the function of the town centre or the character of the historic core of Hertford.

Dr McAllister and Mr Close addressed the Committee in support of the application.  Councillor P Ruffles commented on the nature of Aldi retail offer and whether this application would give permission for that retailer only.  He commented on the screening element of the car park in reference to landscaping to the Lea Valley side of the site.  He referred in particular to protection for residents of West Street.  He also referred to the wording of the conditions and the two hour limit for users of the car park and the possibility that they could also visit the town centre.

Councillor D Andrews commented that although he was broadly content with the application, he wondered whether Section 106 amelioration would be of benefit for the residents of West Street.  Councillor D Oldridge commented on the need for clarity regarding condition 21 and car parking hours of use and condition 7 in terms of a more precise number of cycle spaces for the car park.

Councillor B Deering commented on the importance of securing a workable underpass that people will use and he referred to the critical importance of protecting the underpass with CCTV.  Councillor T Stowe highlighted the importance of the car park and roadway being covered by a permeable material to avoid surface water run-off.

The Head confirmed that the occupier of the site was not wholly relevant as the application was for a class A1 retail use.  The building would be bespoke for a particular operator for convenience and comparison retailing. 

Members were advised that the screening to the southern side of the car park was a very valid point and condition 26 covered a landscape management plan regarding the southern perimeter of the site.  The Head stressed that the hours of use of the car park was covered by the proposed planning condition 21 and a car park management plan, although Officers would look at the wording of this in light of Members’ comments and concerns on the car park.

Members were advised that the modelling work carried out by Hertfordshire County Council had indicated that the scheme would not have any adverse impact on the road network.  The conditions regarding disabled car parking spaces and cycle spaces could be amended to be entirely specific in terms of not being less than a certain number.

The Head concluded that Officers would continue to liaise with the applicant on funding for treatment works for the underpass plus CCTV.  Members were advised that Officers would work with the applicant regarding surface water drainage conditions and details of construction materials.

Councillor J Jones praised the proposed development as an excellent design that sat well next to Gascoyne Way.  He felt that the food store would be very welcome in Hertford.  Councillor D Andrews commented on the possibility of a condition that ensured that the car park was secured so that it was more difficult for non-shoppers to use the car park after the proposed food store had closed.

Councillor P Ruffles welcomed the subway treatment works and  drew attention to three other subways which already had murals and emphasised that it would be most welcome if this underpass followed the tone of these.  He also welcomed the location of this site to the west of the town centre as the retail offer had shifted to the east.

Councillor P Ruffles countered the point made by Councillor J Jones regarding an excellent design.  He felt that the existing employment building was good looking and the proposed development was a standard store design that did not look any better.  Councillor P Ruffles expressed concerns regarding cyclists and pedestrians having safe passage across the entrance to the site given the speed of traffic on Gascoyne Way.  He suggested that Officers could go back to HCC Highways regarding whether more could be done regarding the safety of cyclists and pedestrians.

The Head referred to condition 4 in the report submitted and advised that the intended store operating hours would actually be 8 am to 10 pm from Monday to Saturday.  The car park management plan could be amended to ensure the safety and security of the car park.

The Head emphasised that the junction had a crossing island where each half had issues in terms of visibility and the speed of vehicles.  Officers could take this issue back to the highways experts so that other potential design arrangements could be explored and incorporated into the conditions following further scrutiny.

In reply to a comment from Councillor D Oldridge regarding the balance of short term and long term parking spaces, the Head confirmed that Officers would further explore this issue on behalf of the Committee.

Councillor P Ruffles proposed and Councillor M Allen seconded, a motion that in respect of application 3/17/1537/FUL, the Committee support the recommendation for approval subject to a legal agreement and the conditions detailed in the report submitted.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee supported the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/17/1537/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to a legal agreement and the conditions detailed in the report submitted.