Agenda item

a) 3/13/0368/FP – Recommended for Approval.

b) 3/13/0369/LC – Recommended for Approval.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to the applicant entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of application 3/13/0368/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services also recommended that, in respect of application 3/13/0369/LC, conservation area consent be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor M Alexander referred to the access and egress arrangements and the fact that 11 houses would generate at least 11 cars.  He questioned how emergency, refuse and construction vehicles could access the site. 

Councillor M Newman expressed concern at the design of the new build which, he felt, was not in keeping with the other buildings.  He was also unhappy with the access and egress especially for emergency vehicles.

Councillor P Moore referred to the very narrow access to the site.  Councillor E Bedford suggested that the proposals be redesigned or modified to suit the riverside. 

The Director explained that the building design had to be sympathetic within the Conservation Area and referred to the fact that the gazebo was a listed building.  He agreed that the access was constrained but that the buildings needed a use to survive and that the Highways Agency had stated that a commercial use of the area was less preferential.  As this was not a new-build, the impact of construction vehicles would be kept to a minimum.

The Director referred to the fact that the existing building currently had asbestos within it, which would need to be removed.  He referred to comments which had been received from the Environment Agency that flooding on this site was unlikely.  On balance, Officers felt that the proposals would be an improvement to the riverside site and the gazebo.

The Director acknowledged that it was a long narrow plot and that there were issues regarding services and access.  He referred to the fact that it was a in a town centre location and that the Council would get the benefits of reusing the building and supporting small schemes in the area.  He added that larger properties would generate more vehicles but smaller properties might attract commuters.   He reminded Members of the Council’s parking standards in that the Council would accommodate a reduction in parking standards in community centre locations.  

Councillor M Newman proposed and Councillor M Alexander seconded, a motion that applications 3/13/0368/FP and 3/13/0369/LC be refused on the grounds that the design of the building on the southern part of the site was inappropriate to the character of the area and that the absence of an acceptable scheme for the demolition of the site would have a harmful effect on the area. 

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee rejected the recommendations of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/13/0368/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.           The proposed new build dwelling at the southern end of the site is considered to be of an inappropriate design that fails to respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area including the adjacent river setting and the Ware Conservation Area.  The proposal is thereby contrary to policies HSG7, ENV1 and BH6 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.           Flooding Sequential Test (BO92).

(B)   in respect of application 3/13/0369/LC, conservation area consent be refused for the following reason:

1.           In the absence of satisfactory proposals for the use or development of the southern part of the site, the demolition of the riverside building is considered to have a harmful and unacceptable impact on the character and the appearance of the Ware Conservation Area, contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.