Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Key addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Thackray and Mr Sneddon spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/14/0369/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director referred Members to the late representations summary for additional comments for and against the proposed development.  Members were advised that amended layout plans had been submitted which indicated the potential for an increased level of parking provision on the site.  The Director advised that the revised plans had not been the subject of public consultation.

Councillor M Carver, as the local ward Member, referred to this being an application for the replacement of a derelict but once vibrant and well respected public house and restaurant with a similar facility that included limited guest accommodation.  He commented that Members had received a very extensive critique in respect of the report from those who objected to the application.

Councillor Carver stated that the Officer should be praised for thoroughly addressing the proposals and all points of concern that had been raised on the basis of their planning relevance only. He also praised the Highways engineer for thoroughly engaging with this application.

Councillor Carver urged Members to consider the hierarchy of planning policy as well as the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  He concluded that all of the planning policy arguments had been balanced by Officers and he urged Members to do the same.  Councillor Carver stated that the community input from Much Hadham residents was an equal balance of support and objection.

Councillor S Bull welcomed the application and stated that Hertfordshire Highways had no objections in what was one of the prettiest villages in East Herts.  Councillor G Williamson stated that an application for a pub on a site that previously had a pub was preferable to other potential forms of development.

Councillor P Ruffles referred to the hierarchy of planning matters and highlighted that the highways considerations in the report did not accord with his understanding that, as regards off site highways improvements, pedestrians were generally given a greater consideration than cars in highways terms.

Councillor G Williamson commented that the application could be deemed to be inappropriate development in the rural area beyond the Green belt.  He stated that this was not a sustainable location in transport terms as the bus service was very thin and he could not see many customers arriving by bus.

The Director advised that the footway improvements in the form of a wider footway would be limited to the area immediately in front of the application site.  Members were advised that there did not appear to be any prospect of a more extensive widening of the footway between the site and the main area of the village because land was either not available or this would require a narrowing of the road carriageway which was likely to be unacceptable. 

Members were advised that, the character of the footway and the highway in this area was not untypical of many rural areas of the District.

Councillor J Jones stated that he was supportive of the application and he acknowledged that the new pub needed other facilities and guest accommodation in order to be financially viable.  He concluded that the proposed development would be of great benefit to the Much Hadham community.

Councillor G Jones commented that the design of the proposed development was not very coherent and the plans could have been to a higher architectural standard.  He accepted the view of Hertfordshire Highways but it was clear that the location was unsustainable in transport terms and all journeys to the site would realistically be by car.

The Director stated that pubs across the country had struggled to survive in the prevailing economic climate and the solution that pubs had deployed was to extend their offer and Members should have regard to the viability risk.  Members were advised that, in terms of transport sustainability, it was acknowledged that visits to the site by pedestrians would not be likely to be much other than ramblers in the summer months.

The Director advised that the NPPF set out that when considering transport sustainability in rural areas, account also needed to be taken of other policies in the framework.  In response to a comment from Councillor K Crofton, Members were advised that policy OSV8 was a saved policy that could be given due weight.

Members were asked whether they wished to give a view on the amended plans for additional car parking.  The Director stated that authority could be delegated to Officers, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and the local Ward Member, to consider responses received in relation to any further consultation and determine the application accordingly.

In reply to a query from Councillor N Symonds regarding the additional car parking being provided on a permeable surface, the Director advised that Officers could discuss this with the applicant.  Members were advised that the additional car parking had not been subject to public consultation and the Committee could delegate authority to Officers to conduct such consultation.

Councillor S Bull proposed and Councillor K Crofton seconded, a motion that application 3/14/0369/FP be granted subject to further consultation solely in relation to a revised on-site parking layout.

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

RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/14/0369/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted and the outcome of (B) below; and

(B)   authority be delegated to Officers, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and the local Ward Member, to consider responses received in relation to the further consultation and determine the application accordingly.