Agenda item

The Director of Neighbourhood Services submitted a report updating Members in relation to the current circumstances regarding a planning appeal in respect of planning application 3/13/1762/FP at Hertford Regional College, Scotts Road, Ware.  The Director had invited Members to consider the Council’s position in the light of further relevant information.

Councillor P Ballam addressed the Committee on behalf of the local ward Member, Councillor M Pope.  She referred to the recent briefing for Members arranged by the Head of Planning and Building Control, where Members were advised that Officers would be presenting a robust defence of two of the three reasons for refusal at the forthcoming appeal proceedings.

Councillor Ballam stated that Officers did not feel that a strong enough case could be made in respect of the second reason for refusal due to the levels of car ownership in the Ware Chadwell ward.  She reiterated the concerns of herself and Councillor Pope, as well as those of local residents and Ware Town Council, in respect of inadequate car parking.  She also referred to an e-mail that had been sent to Members setting out why the second reason for refusal should also be contested by the Authority.

Councillor Ballam reminded Members that this was a settled area where many of the residents were of old age and did not drive.  She commented that when these residents moved out, the new occupants would likely be families with two or three cars.  She stressed that parking was at a premium due to college and commuter parking and also residential parking.

Councillor Ballam emphasised that today’s lifestyle necessitated the ownership of a car and many environmentally concerned residents who either walked or used public transport had no option but to own and use a car.  She concluded that if the Authority did not contest the parking refusal reason, the Council would not be able to refuse other planning applications on the grounds of inadequate car parking.

Councillor E Bedford endorsed all the comments of Councillor Ballam and expressed concerns in respect of the impact of the application on the existing street scene.  Councillor G Jones expressed concern that the report significantly undermined the case of the Authority at appeal.  He stated that he was minded to support all of the reasons for refusal.

Councillor P Moore commented that 6% affordable housing provision was unacceptable and she could not agree to this as it could set a precedent for future planning applications.  Councillor M Alexander expressed concerns that if the second reason for refusal was not contested then the Council’s position would be weakened when the recently submitted similar application was submitted to the Development Management Committee.

The Director acknowledged the concern raised by Councillor G Jones but indicated that Officers did not have explicit delegated authority to determine the reconsideration request that had been put to the Council.

The Director stated that the report did not recommend any change to the Council’s position regarding the third reason for refusal.  Members were advised however, that during the inquiry and prior to any decision being made, the inspectorate would take into account any relevant information or government advice and guidance released subsequent to the Council’s decision.  It was therefore appropriate for the Council also to address any issues which might be raised by changes to guidance and legislation.

The Director advised that the issue of car parking had been considered in the context of census data for Ware overall, providing a more robust assessment that just Ware Chadwell ward.  He advised caution as the issue of college and commuter parking was controlled via existing parking controls.

The Director advised that parking surveys had demonstrated that the particular local circumstances in Scotts Road were such that parking demand was light outside of the controlled hours and existing and new residents were bound by the same rules at all other times.  Members were advised that survey work had indicated that parking in Scotts Road was light with one to two vehicles at most.  Officers would find it difficult to substantiate a case on that basis at the appeal.

The Director concluded that any decisions taken by the Authority were material in the context of any future applications that came before Members or Officers for a decision.  Members were advised that the revised application was largely the same albeit with one less residential unit.

In response to a query from Councillor Alexander, the Director advised that Officers had acknowledged the position in relation to securing funding for the provision of education by Hertfordshire County Council as the education authority.  However East Herts Council had no explicit policy as regards securing funding for further and higher education.  The Council did however, have policies regarding the provision of affordable housing and the funding of community and development infrastructure.

After being put to the meeting and votes taken, the Committee accepted recommendation (A) but rejected recommendations (B) and (C) as detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor M Alexander proposed and Councillor D Andrews seconded, a motion that, in relation to reason for refusal 2, the Council will pursue a case on this matter in relation to the forthcoming appeal and the appellant be informed of this position.

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

RESOLVED – that (A) in relation to reasons for refusal 1 and 3, the Council continues to prepare its case in relation to the forthcoming appeal; and

(B)   in relation to reason for refusal 2, the Council will pursue a case on this matter in relation to the forthcoming appeal and the appellant be informed of the Council’s position.