Agenda item

Mr Robeson addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mrs Scholey and Mrs Fish spoke for the application.

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 Director reminded Members of the recent planning history of the application.  He stressed that no decision had been reached on these proposals and it was entirely appropriate for Members to consider all the information before them and then reach a decision.

The Director referred to the planning documents Members should take into account when determining this application.  He referred, in particular, to East Herts Local Plan national planning guidance in PPS4 and the sequential test considerations.  He stressed that Members should not directly compare sites but should consider the availability, suitability and viability of sites to determine which was sequentially preferable.

In response to a query from Councillors M R Alexander and R Gilbert, the Director detailed the land ownership arrangements on the Crane Mead site.

The committee were in agreement with the view of the Chairman that, in this case, there was an alternative site, the Crane Mead site, which could be identified as a well connected ‘edge of centre’ site.  The application site is an ‘out of centre’ site.  It was necessary therefore for the committee to consider that alternative site to establish whether it was sequentially preferable.  He indicated that the committee should consider separately the issues of availability, suitability and viability.

In relation to the first of these, availability, Councillor J J Taylor proposed and Councillor R N Copping seconded a motion that the Crane Mead site was available for development.

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

Councillors M R Alexander, K A Barnes, S A Bull, A L Burlton, D A A Peek and R I Taylor requested that their abstention from voting be recorded.

With regard to suitability, Councillor J J Taylor stated that the Crane Mead site was within a short walking distance of the edge of Ware town centre and was suitable.  Councillor R Gilbert sought and was given clarification in respect of local plan policies in relation to the Crane Mead site.

Councillor J J Taylor proposed and Councillor R N Copping seconded, a motion that the Crane Mead site was suitable to meet the needs of improved choice in Ware and on the grounds that the site did not have to be of the same scale and form as the applicant’s proposal and the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate that development on the more central site could not meet the same or similar need as the site for application 3/10/0386/FP.

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

Councillors M R Alexander, A L Burlton, S A Bull, J Demonti, G E Lawrence, D A A Peek, R I Taylor and B M Wrangles requested that their abstention from voting be recorded.

With regard to viability, Councillor J J Taylor proposed and Councillor R N Copping seconded, a motion that the Crane Mead site was a viable location for a supermarket in Ware.

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

Councillors M R Alexander, K A Barnes, A L Burlton, S A Bull, J Demonti, R Gilbert, G E Lawrence, D A A Peek, R I Taylor and
B M Wrangles requested that their abstention from voting be recorded.

The Chairman invited Members to consider the issue of any impact that the proposed development would have in terms of the guidance in PPS4.  The Director stressed that given that Members had determined that the Crane Mead site was sequentially preferable, the expectation would now be that the application detailed in the report would be refused.  However, it remained appropriate to consider impact to ensure that if this was unacceptable, it was also taken account of in any decision.

Councillor R Gilbert proposed and Councillor M R Alexander seconded, a motion that the proposals would result in no unacceptable impact.

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

Councillor W Ashley reminded Members that, given the decisions that the committee had taken, it would now be expected that the proposals would be refused.  There had to be clear and cogent reasons for doing otherwise.

The Director stated that exceptions to policy, particularly where another site had been judged to sequentially preferable, would be few and far between.  He stressed that any exception to policy would very likely be subject to challenge.  This required the Council to be clear about the reasons for its decision and would be likely to result in delay to any final decision.

Councillor R Gilbert proposed and Councillor M R Alexander seconded, a motion that application 3/10/0386/FP be approved.  It was considered that the issues now detailed outweighed the guidance to ensure that such development takes place on sequentially preferable sites.  It was considered appropriate to support the proposals due to the regeneration and reuse of the currently derelict brownfield site for a development ready to go ahead on a site in single ownership, due to the restoration and reuse of historical assets in particular the Kiln and Malting’s Building located on the site, bringing forward an opportunity for the provision of private and affordable housing with particular emphasis on securing affordable housing sooner rather than later, bringing forward an employment generating development opportunity sooner rather than later and the provision of a mixed use development by virtue of the nursery provision.

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, subject to referral to the Secretary of State, in respect of application 3/10/0386/FP, planning permission be granted and authority delegated to Officers, in consultation with the Chairman, to finalise conditions and appropriate planning obligations broadly in line with those set out in Appendix ‘B’ to the report now submitted.