Agenda item

3/13/0551/FP – Recommended for Approval.

Mrs Stevenson addressed the Committee against the application.  Mr Flintoft spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to the applicant or successor in title signing a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of application 3/13/0551/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director referred Members to the additional representations summary.  He stated that the Council’s Environmental Manager had commented that there was justification for outdoor sport/recreation and play space contributions.  Members were also advised that County Highways had confirmed an agreement in principle to release the previous contribution towards a car club for Mead Lane.

The Director drew the Committee’s attention to an amended schedule of conditions which had been circulated to all Members.  The amendments were very minor in nature and were predominantly related to the wording regarding the triggers for development of this site.

Councillor P Ruffles, as the local ward Member, stated that he had not encountered the community support referred to by the supporting public speaker.  He stated that he fully understood the constraints Officers were working with in terms of delivering homes.  He commented however that this application could not be regarded as good planning by the public in light of the deficit in parking provision compared to what was needed in practice for a development of this size.

Councillor Ruffles stated that the proposed development would dwarf the predominantly Victorian homes in the area, as well as overshadowing the grade 2 listed Hertford East train station.  He emphasised that Hertford Town Council would not support applications in this area except in very special circumstances due to the overcapacity of the road network leading to existing houses and the nearby industrial area.  He urged the Committee to find planning reasons to refuse the application.

Councillor D Andrews referred to the proposed parking allocation of less than 3 quarters of a space per unit as being inadequate and unworkable.  He also stated that a car club had been tried elsewhere in the District and had been proved to be unworkable.

Councillor G Williamson queried what would be gained from the proposed new link road between Mead Lane and Mill Road, in particular the provision of a bus lay-by in the form of transport interchange.  He referred to the existing bus route via Tesco.

Councillor P Moore commented that something needed to be done in this area as it was an untidy entrance to Hertford.  She referred to her concern that Hertford did not need 52 one bedroom flats as well as the inadequate parking provision.  Councillor K Crofton stated that the site should be retained for industrial purposes or commercial usage.

The Director stated this site was a highly sustainable location that was very close to Hertford Town Centre and adjacent to a train station.  He advised Members that, in East Herts terms, this was one of the most sustainable sites in the District.

Members were advised that this was not an allocated employment site and the site had only been a light industrial area for many years.  Members were advised that none of the existing residents had raised concerns in respect of a loss of employment in relation to this application.

The Director referred to the requirement for the Authority to ensure that the District’s housing needs were met and a sustainable town centre site would be preferable to an open countryside location.

In response to a query from Councillor M Newman regarding lifetime home standards, the Director advised that a condition had been included for the provision of 15% lifetime homes on this site.

Councillor M Alexander proposed and Councillor D Andrews seconded, a motion that application 3/13/0551/FP be refused on the grounds that the retention of the site for employment uses had not been fully explored and the proposed development was therefore contrary to policy EDE2 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.  The proposed development would also result in the overdevelopment of the site and lead to additional pressure on limited parking availability in the area and was therefore contrary to polices ENV1 and TR7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/13/0551/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.            The development, by reason of the number of units proposed, resulting density and lack of ability to provide sufficient parking would result in the overdevelopment of the site and lead to additional pressure on limited parking availability in the area.  It would thereby be contrary to polices ENV1 and TR7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework which require that development proposals result in a high quality built environment.

2.            The Council is not satisfied that the retention of the site for employment use has been fully explored without success.  The proposed development is thereby contrary to policy EDE2 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Summary of Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2012 (as amended), East Herts Council has considered, in a positive and proactive manner, whether the planning objections to this proposal could be satisfactorily resolved within the statutory period for determining the application. However, for the reasons now detailed, the proposal has not achieved an acceptable and sustainable development in accordance with the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.