Agenda item

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/1776/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head of Planning and Building Control summarised the application and detailed the relevant planning history.  Members were advised that a number of garage buildings would be removed to make way for the erection of a modern commercial storage building and office space.

The Head advised that the site was located within the designated employment area of Mead Lane, Hertford.  The policy position dictated that commercial development in this area should be supported.  Members were reminded that the adopted District Plan had identified land to the north of this site for a mixed use development and the relationship between these sites should be carefully considered.

The Head advised that the residential element of the mixed development extended to the north of this site.  Officers considered however that an acceptable relationship could be achieved between the 2 sites.

Members were advised that, despite the proposed increase in floor space, the site would achieve the required number of spaces based on the parking standards that the Authority would seek to achieve.

The Head confirmed that some trees would be removed to accommodate car parking.  Members were advised however that following further consideration of the issue of the loss of landscaping at the site, the applicant had offered the provision of replacement planting on the south east corner of the site.

The Chairman confirmed that he had received an email from the Mayor of Hertford asking that Members be careful in their deliberations in respect of car parking.  Councillor J Jones commented that there was an under provision of car parking on Mead Lane car and there was no mention of any proposed cycle storage.  He believed that there would be an under provision of car parking.

Councillor P Boylan commented that the current staff volume on site of 42 would increase to 86 and there would be a reduction in car parking.  He had observed the car park being well used when visiting the site and the surrounding roads were also being used for parking.  He stated that a travel plan could be submitted and agreed before development commenced on this site.

Councillor P Ruffles commented on a number of matters that he liked in respect of this application.  He was concerned in relation to the context of the locality in respect of Highways matters and the access to this site.  He referred to the likely reaction to more traffic which would be increased further by the District Plan site.  He commented on the year on year increases in road traffic in this location.  He sought clarification on the designation of this site as a trips attractor and not a trips generator.

Councillor J Kaye referred to the importance of encouraging employment with a company such as this.  He commented on whether more information was available in respect of the fundamental matter of a travel plan to mitigate the impacts of this application on traffic and car parking.

Councillor M Casey expressed concerns that moving to a position of 1 parking space for every 2 employees would introduce the danger of access for residents of neighbouring properties being blocked by cars.  He questioned whether any investigation had been done to explore how the employees got to work in terms of using the private car or public transport in relation to the use of the car park.

The Head referred Members to paragraph 48 of the report and he provided a detailed breakdown of the numbers in respect of the car parking standards.  Officers had applied a reduction of 10%, considered reasonable on the basis that the site was not remote from the town centre with its bus and rail services.

Members were advised that the highway authority had suggested a travel plan with alternatives to the car as there was currently no disincentive using cars as motorists could reasonably expect to park when they arrived.  The Head explained the purpose of the travel plan in that it was a promotional document setting out the measures this employer would take  to promote alternatives to cars and reduce the burden on local roads.

The Head referred to the definition of a trips attractor site and the difference between this and a trips generator.  A place of work was a trips attractor for example as employees arrived there at the end of a journey to a place of work.  Members were advised that residential dwellings were classified as trips generators as the starting place for journeys to work or to local shops or other locations.

The Head confirmed the position being taken by Hertfordshire Highways in respect of this application.  The Head explained that a pre-commencement condition could not unilaterally imposed without the applicant first being consulted by the Authority in line with new regulations that had been introduced in 2018.

Following a request from Councillor P Boylan, the Chairman read out the email he had received from the Mayor of Hertford as referred to earlier on in the debate.  The Head reiterated the status of supplementary planning documents in respect of parking following comments from Councillor D Andrews. 

The Interim Legal Services Manager responded to a query from Councillor M Allen regarding the prospect of success of any appeal.

Councillor J Jones proposed and Councillor R Brunton seconded, a motion that in respect of application 3/18/1776/FUL, the Committee support the recommendation for approval, subject to 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 3/18/1776/FUL, planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted.