Agenda item

Mr Podevin addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.  Mr Gillingham spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/0396/FP, subject to the applicant entering into a legal obligation pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Director advised that the section 106 figure for off site provision of affordable housing had been amended and should now read £574,000.  The requirement for 15% lifetime homes was no longer considered appropriate as the proposed development was for accommodation for older people.

Councillor A L Warman expressed concerns that an application had come back to the Committee so soon after being refused due to concerns in respect of loss of amenity. 

Councillor R Gilbert commented that the report highlighted that changes had been made since the previous application had been refused.  He stated that the previous reasons for refusal still applied.  He also expressed concerns that the proposed parking provision was inadequate.

Councillor Mrs M H Goldspink expressed concerns that the application still constituted over development.  She stated that the height, bulk and massing of the proposed developed would have an overwhelming effect on surrounding dwellings.

Councillor Goldspink expressed concerns with the number of units being in excess of the 30 – 50 units hectare guideline.  She stated that the design was unacceptable and the proposed parking provision was inadequate.  She concluded that the small separation  distance to surrounding dwellings was unacceptable.

The Director confirmed that following financial viability assessments, the £574,000 for affordable housing was the level that the developer felt was deliverable on this site. 

In response to a query from Councillor A L Burlton, the Director confirmed that Officers felt that the Environmental Health condition around noise, air quality and contaminated land was not appropriate in this location.

The Director advised that Officers felt that the previous reasons for refusal had all been addressed.  Members would now need to make a judgement as to whether they felt the scale, size, massing and design of the proposed development was acceptable.

The Committee was reminded that developers typically sought to maximise the development potential of any given site.  The Director stated that Officers had considered this application to be acceptable in terms of the layout and design that had been submitted.

The Director also stated that unless Officers felt that parking was going to be particularly problematic, the parking policy stipulated a maximum provision and applicants often submitted plans for a lesser provision than was acceptable in relation to this policy.

The Director advised that this applicant had considerable experience of this type of accommodation.  The applicant clearly considered that the proposed parking provision would operate effectively on this site.  Members might not be able to demonstrate substantive evidence to the contrary.

Councillor Mrs M H Goldspink proposed and Councillor R Gilbert seconded, a motion that application 3/10/0396/FP be refused on the grounds that the proposed development failed to achieve a high standard of layout and by reason of its size, massing, design and form would result in a development that would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual interest of the surrounding area and also that the application failed to make adequate provision for parking within the site to the detriment of the amenities of future occupants.

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 3/10/0396/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

Councillors M R Alexander, W Ashley, S A Bull and B M Wrangles requested that their dissent from this decision be recorded.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/0396/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.           The proposed development fails to achieve a high standard of layout and by reason of its size, massing, design and form would result in a development that would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual interest of the surrounding area, contrary to Policies ENV1 and HSG7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

2.           The proposal fails to make adequate provision for parking within the site to the detriment of the amenities of future occupants, and would thereby be contrary to Policies ENV1 and TR7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.