Agenda item

Recommended for Refusal.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/2465/OUT, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

The Principal Planning Officer, on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control summarised the outline application and detailed the relevant planning history.

Mr Steven Gough spoke for the application. Hertford Town Councillor Jane Sartin addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Councillor S Rutland-Barsby referred to the fact that the adopted District Plan recognised that the site could accommodate 200 dwellings but not the 325 proposed by the developer.  She referred to the impact this application would have on Highways and supported refusal of the application.

Councillor J Kaye said he was concerned about the scale of the development and about the number of proposed dwellings.  He sought clarification that the developer had been given guidance at the pre-application stage. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that advice had been given and that the applicant had also been part of the district plan consultation process which had been examined by an Inspector.  She added that the developer should submit an application which was policy compliant.

Councillor T Stowe sought clarification as to whether the developer had been involved with other Steering Group meetings.  The Service Manager (Development Management) was unable to confirm how many Steering Group meetings the Developer had attended on the basis that other Officers had previously been involved.

Councillor D Andrews requested that in future, phrases such as “benefit from” in reports be removed so that the content  sounded more objective.  He expressed concern about the impact the application might have in relation to the provision of social housing if the developer reduced the housing provision to 200 dwellings.

Councillor I Kemp said he was disappointed with the application, given that the applicant was a specialist in the development of such sites.  He commented on the site’s high levels of contamination, problems with access, the design layout (in that many people would not enjoy the river view), and the potential for heavily shaded gardens.  He felt that this was a substandard design given the developer’s previous experience.

Councillor P Ruffles said the timber yard was included in Part 2 and was not included in this application for 375 dwellings.  He asked Members to keep this in mind.

Councillor I Kemp sought clarification regarding egress from the eastern end.  Mr Flowerday from Hertfordshire County Council (Highways) summarised the County Council’s concerns which had contributed to a recommendation for refusal of the application.

Councillor T Beckett commented on parking for the site and encouraged sustainable transport.  These concerns were shared by Councillor D Andrews who commented on the closeness of the railway station and bus hub.  He commented that people would still need their vehicles close to their homes in order to charge them if they had electric cars.

Councillor D Andrew proposed and Councillor T Beckett seconded, a motion that in respect of application 3/18/2465/OUT, planning permission be refused for the reasons 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 3/18/2465/OUT, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report submitted.