Agenda item

3/18/2798/FUL – Recommended for Approval

3/18/2799/LBC – Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of applications 3/18/2798/FUL and 3/18/2799/LBC, planning permission and listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Service Manager (Development Management), on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, said that the issues for Members to consider were set out at paragraph 1.4. He referred in particular to the heritage impact in the conservation area and said that this matter carried particular weight. Members were advised that the building was currently vacant and was a listed building.

The Service Manager advised that securing the reuse, upkeep and future use of a listed building carried substantive positive weight. He referred to a late representation from the occupier of 8 Bluecoats which was an adjoining office building. He said that this occupier had previously objected to the application and the previous objection was included in the report now submitted.

Members were advised that the objection related to the proposed building of a new two bedroom apartment in front of 9 Bluecoats and the representation also mentioned the Section 106 agreement for 6, 7 and 8 Bluecoats. The objector had also said that they considered the site unacceptably restricts access for cars and emergency to the side and rear of 8 Bluecoats. The objection had also covered the fact that work had commenced in the basement prior to planning permission being granted.

The Service Manager said that paragraph 8.24 of the report addressed the relationship between the proposed development and adjoining buildings and in particular 8 Bluecoats and this was considered to be acceptable. He advised that paragraph 8.37 covered the fact that this was a town centre site and was therefore highly accessible. Members were advised that car parking was therefore not regarded as critical to the acceptability of the development.

The Service Manager reminded Members that sub-standard and indeed car free developments of conversions to residential had been permitted in the town centres of both Hertford and Bishop’s Stortford. He said that the loss of parking space 13 was not critical but future parking and site plans must be accurate for future enforcement and delegated authority was sought so that Officers could clarify the matter of ownership of parking spaces.

The Service Manager said that Officers accepted that the access and circulation within the site was shared and contentious due to the historic layout of the site being far from ideal and restricted in nature by modern standards. The site was nevertheless acceptable in this context.

The Service Manager gave Members a detailed description of the layout of the site and the proposed development, including a description of the proposed elevations and basement works. He commented on the overall quality of the listed building and referred to the sectional elevations.

Members were reminded of the quality of the building renovations and were advised that the proposed extensions were of the same quality and the Conservation Officer had raised no issues with the renovation of the listed building.

Councillor Ruffles said that he hoped Members would give the delegated authority that Officers sought so that the matter of parking and land ownership could be resolved. He said that the proposals for the headmistress’ house had been a heritage worry for the town in recent years and he was glad the application had been reported to Committee.

Councillor Ruffles referred to the comments of the Town Council in terms of the historic value of the buildings at Bluecoat House. He referred to the history of the site and said that he was grateful for the time that Officers had given to the matter of the relationship of the proposed development to 8 Bluecoats. He said that the proposed density was a concern given the spacious characteristics of the rest of the site.

Councillor Ruffles said that he accepted the argument that the 40% affordable homes requirement should be relaxed due to the issue of viability. He welcomed the proposed replacement of the boundary fencing in Mill Road along the corner of Ware Road to extend the existing southern boundary wall. He asked for some reassurance that the southern boundary wall would be protected due to the presence of an important heritage asset in the form of a gas light from 1830.

The Service Manager said that, as regards the density, this was a town centre location and he accepted that the setting of whole site was more spacious. He said that Members should view this application as enabling development due to the cost of refurbishment of a listed building could be exceptional due to the cost of the building materials.

Members were advised that as regards the southern boundary wall and the listed artefact, any alterations or removal would require listed building consent. Councillor Crystall commented on the proposed 11 parking spaces for the 15 apartments and said that only four were marked as electric charging points and he asked whether this could be increased to one charging point per space. He asked whether one of those electric vehicle spaces could be one to be shared informally or formerly between the apartments, perhaps via a management company.

Councillor Crystall said that the developer had proposed the use of ground source heat pumps for heating and electricity and he asked whether this could be conditioned given that the site was close to an air quality management area (AQMA).

The Service Manager said that the proposed number of spaces was less than the number of flats but this was not sub-standard for a town centre location. He said that the development was not large enough to financially sustain the provision referred to by Councillor Crystall. Members were advised that this scheme was satisfactory in that it was policy compliant with 4 electric vehicle charging points.

Councillor Devonshire commented on paragraph 8.30 and the reference to marginal viability. He referred to the high engineering costs due to the proposed extensions to the basement and the lack of foundations. He said that the extant of these works had not been established and had not been costed and he was concerned that the detailed costings would lead to amendments to the scheme.

Councillor Redfern asked about the extent of potential mitigation measures that could be taken as this was in an AQMA and she was also concerned about noise as this site was located on a corner between two very busy roads.

Councillor Page raised a concern in respect of access for refuse and emergency vehicles and said that he did not understand how this scheme could be policy compliant in terms of resident’s vehicle parking provision. He said that he understood the issue of viability but he felt it was regrettable that there was no affordable housing proposed as part of this application. He said that it was great that the building was being brought back into use and it was good to see that the Conservation and Design Officers were supportive of the proposed development and also that the statutory consultee had raised no objections.

Councillor Stowe commented on condition 9 and the availability of imperial bricks which were more expensive but were generally available. He said that this was a lovely building and the proposed design was good and it would be lovely to see this building brought back into use.

The Service Manager said that the viability assessment and the review of this by a consultant engaged by Officers had revealed the viability to be marginal without the additional works that were needed to support the building. He said that any potential future application for an amended scheme would have to be addressed if this was submitted.

Members were reminded that this was an old building and there might have to be some degree of extraction and ventilation equipment in and around the building, particularly if ground source heat pumps were to be installed.

The Service Manager confirmed that the report was correct in terms of a discounted level of parking for an edge of town centre site and car free schemes were permitted in the town centre. Members were advised that this site was highly accessible being close to the bus station and Hertford East. He said that details of the bricks would need to be submitted in the form of an on-site sample.

Councillor Beckett said that he was pleased to see ground source heat pumps being proposed. He commented that there were hidden costs to open loop systems and he would like to see provision within any future stewardship arrangements for the maintenance of the heat exchanger as well as the regular maintenance of the extraction pump.

Councillor Kemp welcomed the proposed preservation of this historic building in that it would be put to a good new use. He was interested to know whether there was any possibility for the sharing of parking spaces between the office and residential units given that they were likely to be occupied at different times.

The Service Manager acknowledged that access for emergency vehicles was tight but Officers believed that the circulation was adequate in terms of access. He said that the problem for this site was that there were multiple owners and there was a shared access arrangement which served the whole of Bluecoat House. Members were advised that it would be difficult to add stewardship to conditions.

The Service Manager explained that the standard condition regarding landscaping stipulated that plants missing, dying or otherwise removed should be replaced and this was subject to a time limit of 5 years. He said that conditions could not be expected to steward sites indefinitely and continued landscaping maintenance would have to be addressed via the Section 106 process and a Section 106 could not be included in a grant of planning permission solely for the purposes of securing landscape maintenance.

Councillor Beckett proposed and Councillor Devonshire seconded, a motion that applications 3/18/2798/FUL and 3/18/2799/LBC be granted planning permission and listed building consent subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report and subject to delegated authority being given to Officers to clarify the matter of ownership of parking spaces.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED –that in respect of applications 3/18/2798/FUL and 3/18/2799/LBC, planning permission and listed building consent be grantedsubject to the conditions set out at the end of the report and subject to delegated authority being given to Officers to clarify the matter of ownership of parking spaces.