Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

David Waite and Ray Vince addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Luke Raistrick spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that subject to the applicant or successor in title entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of application 3/14/1408/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director reminded Members of the previously refused application, which had been purely residential in nature.  The Committee was advised that many of the issues regarding the layout of the site had been addressed following the previous application.  The current application included a significant level of employment provision and a modest amount of affordable housing.

The Director advised that the layout of the site now incorporated pedestrian linkages between Ware Station and the Crane Mead area and Section 106 funding was now available as part of this application.  Members were advised that this revised scheme now had significant planning merits as a regeneration scheme bearing in mind the NPPF requirement of weighing up the benefits of an application against any significant adverse impacts.

The Director reported that the application would regenerate a prominent site in a conservation area on the edge of Ware Town Centre.  The application would improve the entrance to the Crane Mead area and would assist with the housing land supply as well as preventing the loss of Greenfield land in the countryside as this was previously developed brownfield land.   

The Director concluded that the application delivered enhanced employment space in an area that was attractive for employment uses.  Members were advised that, due to the economic, social and environmental benefits of the scheme, the application constituted sustainable development and Officers felt that the benefits of the scheme outweighed all other considerations.

Councillor E Bedford stated that he was minded to support the application on the basis that the site was very run down as an industrial unit.  He was concerned however, over whether the existing businesses would take up residence in the new buildings.  He also stated that 6% affordable housing was totally inadequate and should be increased.  He concluded that the proposed development would provide badly needed regeneration for this area of Ware.

Councillor G Williamson stated that he could support the proposed development if this site was a run down and disused industrial centre.  He commented however, that this was not the case and the area appeared to be a thriving centre for small businesses that were the lifeblood of the economy.  He concluded that this was not a sustainable economic development as the replacement business space was solely for use class B1 and he could not support an application that would put small businesses at risk.

Councillor M Alexander stated that he did not see what had changed since the previous application was refused in November 2013.  He commented that the existing businesses were not compatible with the proposed B1 use and this application would result in the loss of suitable employment land.  He stressed that he hoped Members would take note of the representation from Ware Town Council.

Councillor Alexander emphasised that he could not support an application with only 6% affordable housing provision.  He highlighted the view of the Planning Policy Team that the site was in a prominent, visible position and therefore the Council should seek to improve the employment offer of this land to support the Business Park and provide valuable local employment opportunities.

Councillor D Andrews expressed concerns in respect of the loss of employment land and also the parking implications of the application.  Councillor N Symonds stated that the District needed bustling industrial areas that employed local people and she was not of the opinion that the site was dilapidated and run down.

Councillor N Symonds commented on whether the application could be deferred to allow further consideration of the issue of the existing business.  Councillor P Moore stated that 6% affordable housing provision out of 101 residential units was absolutely not acceptable.

The Director stated that Crane Mead had seen significant regeneration in the past and this site had benefitted from that.  Members were advised that if there was to be further regeneration of this site then all the existing businesses could not be retained.  Members were reminded of the pressure to deliver housing land and also regeneration.  The Director reminded the Committee that a B1 use did cover light industry.

Councillor M Alexander proposed and Councillor P Moore seconded, a motion that application 3/14/1408/FP be refused on the grounds that the proposal would result in the loss of valuable and suitable employment land contrary to policies EDE1, EDE2 and WA7, the proposed development failed to make adequate provision for affordable housing in accordance with policies HSG3 and HSG4 and the proposed shared parking arrangements failed to adequately meet the needs of both the residential and commercial elements of the proposed development and would exacerbate parking congestion in the vicinity of the site and the proposal was therefore contrary to policy TR7.  The application was also contrary to national planning policy guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/14/1408/FP, planning application be refused for the following reasons:

1.        The site is identified in the East Herts Local Plan as primarily reserved for employment use.  The proposal would result in the loss of valuable and suitable employment land contrary policies EDE1, EDE2 and WA7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and national planning policy guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.        The proposed development fails to make adequate provision for affordable housing in accordance with policies HSG3 and HSG4 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and national planning policy guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework

3.        The proposed shared parking arrangements fail to adequately meet the needs of both the residential and commercial elements of the proposed development and would exacerbate parking congestion in the vicinity of the site.  The proposal is thereby contrary to policy TR7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

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 set out in this decision notice, the proposal is not considered to achieve an acceptable and sustainable development in accordance with the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.  The Council would encourage the applicant to address the reasons for refusal by alternative acceptable proposals through its published pre-application advice.