Agenda item

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/20/1931/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions detailed at the end of the report submitted and delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the Section 106 legal agreement and conditions.

The Development Management Team Manager, on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, drew the attention of the Committee to the late representations summary. She apologised to Councillor Goodeve as her comments on the application were not included in the report  and Members were advised that these comments were now included in this summary.

The Development Management Team Leader summarised the other matters that were covered in the late representations summary. She detailed the application and advised Members of its location just outside of Hertford Town Centre. She advised that the former Gates garage was a Sui Generis use located off Gascoyne Way and the proposed use would be new use class E (g) (i).

Members were advised that the site had been marketed for employment use for a period of approximately 20 months and there had been no interest, due to the number of residential uses that surrounded the site and due to poor vehicular access.

The Development Management Team Leader said that the site would be an employment use and would be marginally reduced in terms of site area. The floor space would be increased internally by 97 square metres. Members were advised that there would be 5 office units ranging from 118 to 124 square metres plus the former car show room at 318 square metres.

Members were advised that Officers were proposing a condition to restrict the use of the employment to use classes E (g) (i), E (g) (ii) and E (g) (iii) so that the Office uses could not change to the general E class uses. The Officer said that these 3 use classes could take place close to residential properties without causing harm to local amenities.

The Development Management Team Leader said that the garages would be conditioned to ensure they were retained for vehicle accommodation. She said that Officers were aware that parking was a problem in this area and adequate parking was proposed as part of the scheme.

Members were advised that a travel plan had been proposed for the office use only and a car club was proposed for general use and there would be cycle parking. Members were also advised that funding had been secured for a residents parking zone in this area and the proposal was policy compliant in respect of a proposed reduction of 16% in carbon dioxide over and above the building control standard.

Mrs Oldham addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. Councillor Goodeve addressed the Committee as a local ward Member.

Councillor Ruffles said that he was grateful for all the attention that had been paid to the various difficulties that had presented themselves in respect of this site. He expressed his support for proposed condition 4 and also condition 28, to do with the garaging and maintaining this use into the future.

Councillor Ruffles referred to the offer of £10,000 to alleviate the cumulative effects of parking on West Street. He commented on the historic importance of the boundary wall in the conservation area.

Councillor Ruffles said that boundaries and the treatment of them were important and he referred to the comments of the Conservation Officer. He also said he was pleased to see the narrowing of the access lane and the raised level to indicate a priority for pedestrians and cyclists on the A414.

Councillor Fernando asked if the figure of £10,000 for a residents parking zone (RPZ) was a realistic figure and he asked how this figure had been reached. Councillor Page asked if the site included the road that ran from Gascoyne Way up to the side of Pegs Lane and whether any assurance could be given to residents that they would continue to have access to this as a service road.

The Development Management Team Leader said that the figure £10,000 contribution towards the implementation of an RPZ had not been assessed, as this was a contribution and there was no policy document that stipulated that this was the amount that should be paid for an RPZ.

Members were advised that the red line boundary of the site did include the access road referred to by Councillor Page. The Officer referred to the late representations summary and a restricted covenant that affected the residents of Pimlico Court. She reassured Councillor Page that she saw no reason why the services of those residents would be diminished by this application.

The Development Management Team Leader responded to queries from Councillors Kaye and R Buckmaster regarding a possible gym and the maintenance of the living wall and whether the electric vehicle (EV) charging points would be 13 or 30 amp car chargers. She explained that future maintenance of the living wall could be included in the Section 106 legal agreement.

Councillor Beckett made an observation in respect of insulation and air tightness and the potential for a 50% improvement in energy efficiency. He expressed disappointment that gas boilers were to be installed and commented on the poor air quality in the area around Gascoyne Way. He said that a passive ventilation system would have better than a reliance on residents opening windows on a hot day.

The Head of Planning and Building Control said that no objections had been raised by Environmental Health in respect of noise and air quality.

Councillor Crystall referred to the position of the Environment Agency and that organisation not presently having sufficient resources to provide detailed comments on the application. He commented on the site being a vulnerable ground water area.

The Development Management Team Leader said that the Environment Agency (EA) had said that they had insufficient resources to assess this application. Members were advised however that the EA did indicate if they had concerns and they had not done so on this application.

Members were advised that the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) had assessed the application and no objection had been raised. The Officer said that the Council’s pollution team had also raised no objections in respect of this application.

Councillor Buckmaster proposed and Councillor Devonshire seconded, a motion that application 3/20/1931/FUL be granted planning permission subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions detailed at the end of the report submitted anddelegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the Section 106 legal agreement and conditions.

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

RESOLVED –that (A) in respect of application 3/20/1931/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions detailed at the end of the report submitted; and

(B)   delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the Section 106 legal agreement and conditions.