Agenda item

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/0386/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons now detailed.

 

The Chairman stated that the applicant had made a formal request that the application be deferred to enable the applicant to overcome the reason for refusal around the retail impact of the proposals.

 

Councillor Mrs M H Goldspink commented on whether any useful information would be forthcoming if the application was deferred.  The Director advised that Officers felt that further work with retail advisors would probably not alter the recommendation in relation to the sequential test.  Officers considered that the Committee should continue to determine the application.

 

Councillor A L Warman started that given the sensitivity of the application, Members should continue to determine the application.

 

Councillor R Gilbert proposed and Councillor S A Bull seconded a motion that the application should not be deferred as this was a significant application and Members had attended a recent tour of the site.

 

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

 

Mr Sanders addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.  Judi Scholey spoke for the application.

 

The Director summarised the detailed background to the application.  He summarised the significant support and opposition to the application.  He stressed that Members must consider the planning merits of this application in relation to the sequential test of whether the Cintel site was sequentially preferable for the proposals when judged against other possible sites.  The only other site which appeared to have merit was the Swains Mill site at Crane Mead.

 

The Director referred the Committee to paragraph 7.16 of the report now submitted.  He stressed that Members must consider the availability, suitability and viability of alternative sites under national planning policy set out in PPS4

 

Members were advised that, although there was no planning application for the Swains Mill site, Officers were of the view that this site was viable and available for an alternative supermarket development.  The Director stressed that there was a more finely balanced judgement to be made in respect of the suitability of the two sites.  Members were referred to paragraph 7.20 of the report in respect of this matter.

 

The Committee was advised that the applicant on this application felt that the larger site at Watton Road would be of greater benefit to Ware in terms or greater provision and claw back of trade.  The Committee should also consider the issue of the primary shopping area of Ware.  Members were referred to paragraphs 7.11 and 7.19 of the report now submitted.  The Director stressed that this would not be formally defined until the Local Development Framework (LDF) document was produced.

 

The Director further advised that, although the applicant considered that the Baldock Street area was the primary shopping area, Officers felt that this part of Ware presently lacked the vitality and concentration of retail activity to be considered part of the primary shopping area.

 

Members were advised that although Officers acknowledged the other planning merits of this application, these merits were not, in their view relevant to the issue of the sequential test.  The Director stressed that the application was not recommended for refusal on highways grounds. 

 

The Director stressed that both sites could support a supermarket in providing choice and competition.  Members were advised that although neither site was considered ideally placed, Officers felt that the site at Crane Mead was closer to the town centre and, on balance, sequentially preferable.  He further stressed that it appeared possible for the second reason for refusal to be overcome following further work between the applicant, Officers and the retail advisors Chase and Partners.

 

The Chairman advised that Members must first determine the issue of the sequential test before debating other planning merits of the application.

 

Councillor J J Taylor supported the Officer’s recommendation.  She stated that, as the Crane Mead site was closer to the town centre, this location was sequentially preferable.  She also commented that the Cintel Site could only be viewed as an out of town location.

 

Councillor R I Taylor commented that EC15.2 of policy PPS4 was relevant in this application.  He stated that the site at Crane Mead was not sequentially preferable and should be ruled out.  He commented that the viability of a supermarket in that location would be limited as the range of goods sold would be limited by the smaller sales area.

 

Councillor M R Alexander stressed that the Cintel Site was available for immediate development where as the Crane Mead site was not owned by a supermarket retailer to develop following the approval of any planning application.  He considered that the Crane Mead site was too small to be suitable for a supermarket.  He also stated that no application was available for consideration on the Crane Mead site.  Councillor Alexander stressed that the applicant had worked hard on this application and the benefits that it could bring would outweigh the potential of development at the Crane Mead site.

 

In response to a concern from R Gilbert that the issue of the sequential test was not relevant as there was no application to consider on the Crane Mead site, the Chairman stressed that the possibility of this site coming forward for development was sufficient to make the sequential test a key issue.  The Chairman reminded Members that the issue of the sequential test on these sites was a finely balanced judgement for the Committee.

 

In response to a number of queries from Members around the sequential test, the Director advised that in other circumstances he would indicate that the Committee should only consider the merits of the application in front of them.   He stressed however that in this case, Members must considere the sequential test under PPS4 in relation to the sites at Watton Road and Crane Mead.

 

The Director stressed that Members should not give weight to the particular operator on either site of their aspirations.  The Committee must take in to account the sequential test for the potential of another site coming forward for development.  The key issue was the availability, suitability and viability of the sites that were available.  Members must consider which site was best placed to satisfy the retail needs of Ware.

 

Councillor R Gilbert commented that the Crane Mead site was not large enough to support a supermarket of a sufficient size to satisfy the retail needs of Ware.

 

Councillor J J Taylor proposed and Councillor A L Warman seconded, a motion that the Crane Mead site was sequentially preferable as this site was closer to the primary shopping area of Ware.

 

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared LOST on the Chairman’s casting vote in favour of the Cintel Site, Watton Road, Ware.

 

The Committee considered the Cintel Site to be preferable because, whilst it was not located in the centre of the town, it was suitably placed to serve the residential areas of the town which were located to the north of the town centre.

The Committee felt that the proposed development would result in a significant amount of regeneration of the area and reuse of buildings of heritage interest on the site.

 

Members felt that the Cintel Site was a larger site than the alternative and represents an opportunity to ensure a wide range of goods are offered to meet the needs of the town.

 

The Committee also considered that there must be some doubt about the ability of the alternative site to come forward

 

The Chairman opened up the debate to consider the other planning issues relating to the application.  Councillor J J Taylor referred to 3 strong reasons why application 3/10/0396/FP should be refused on the Cintel Site, Watton Road, Ware.

 

Councillor J J Taylor, as the local ward Member, stated that this application would suck the life blood and heartbeat out of Ware Town Centre.  She stressed that local shop keepers would be starved of trade and Ware would cease to survive. 

 

Councillor J J Taylor expressed concerns that the Cintel Site was not in the primary shopping are and was not adjacent to the major town centre shopping streets.  She stated that shoppers would carry out a complete shop at the Cintel Site and the town traders would lose business which could in turn result in the rapid decline of Ware as a medieval town.  Councillor Taylor commented that the demise of the town was an issue of considerable concern to the people of Ware.

 

Councillor J J Taylor further stated that although Hertfordshire Highways had issued a scathing report on this application, the application was not recommended for refusal on highways matters.  She commented that Hertfordshire Highways had admitted that congestion could be an issue, although this could be outweighed by the retail need for the store.

 

Councillor Taylor also expressed concerns that Fanshaw Crescent, Park Road and Watton Road could be severely affected as the highway network became saturated with the extra traffic accessing the site for shopping and deliveries.  She referred to concerns of parents in respect of child safety. 

 

Councillor Taylor stressed that the Baldock Street roundabout and the western end of Ware could end up at a traffic standstill if this application was approved.  She stated that the parking provision was below the maximum provision.

 

Councillor Taylor commented that lorry deliveries and staff cars accessing the store was a major concern.  She stated that English Heritage had branded the designs as bland and repetitive.  The Landscape Officer had also expressed concerns in relation to the loss of trees on the site.  Councillor Taylor referred to the potential for light pollution after the store had closed as lights were often left of in supermarkets for security reasons.

 

Councillor S A Bull stated that a significant number of people welcomed the prospect of a new store in this location.  He commented that the new store would enhance the vitality of Ware and increase trade due to the large range of goods potentially available.

 

Councillor Bull stated that shoppers would come to Ware in favour of travelling to Harlow or Stevenage for significant food shopping.  Councillor R Gilbert commented that Hertfordshire Highways had in fact supported the application.

 

Councillor A L Warman expressed concerns in relation to the construction designs of the store, in particular the omission of a mezzanine floor.  He expressed concerns that the application would exacerbate the problems of traffic flow in this part of Ware.  He cited 2012 as a particular concern when Wodson Park was scheduled to be used as an Olympic training venue.

 

Councillor M R Alexander stated that Ware Town Council had not objected in principle to the application.  He was encouraged that the applicant had sought to protect the heritage of the Cintel Site.  He stressed that concerns in relation to delivery vehicles could be addressed once the store was in operation.

 

Councillor R N Copping summarised the concerns of Stanstead Abbotts Parish Council.  He stated that the application would have no benefits for Ware and should be refused for all the reasons given by that Parish Council. 

 

Councillor D Andrews stated that the primary shopping area was a long way from this site and many of the shops in Ware Town Centre would suffer significantly.  The traffic would become a significant problem on Watton Road and on the A1170.

 

The Director advised that if Members felt that their concerns were so significant that the application could not be supported, then the Committee should refuse the scheme on that basis.  He stressed however that, if the Committee determined that it did not have detailed concerns, then rather than reach a final decision now, he advised Members defer the application to enable Officers to consider appropriate conditions and the details of a section 106 legal agreement.  Members were also advised that the application may be referred to the Government Office in any event.

 

Councillor J J Taylor proposed and Councillor A L Warman seconded, a motion that application 3/10/0386/FP be refused as the application would result in congestion and oversaturation of the highway network, an unacceptable impact on the amenity of local residents.

 

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

 

Councillor R Gilbert proposed and Councillor S A Bull seconded, a motion that application 3/10/0386/FP be deferred to enable Officers to consider appropriate conditions and the details of a section 106 legal agreement.

 

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 that application 3/10/0386/FP be refused planning permission for the reasons now detailed.

 

RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/10/0386/FP, planning permission be granted in principle and the application be referred to the secretary of state; and

 

(B)   in respect of application 3/10/0386/FP, planning permission be deferred to enable Officers to bring back a further report setting out details of conditions and the section 106 planning obligation agreement.