Agenda item

The Head of Planning and Building Control submitted a report to enable the Committee to review its position in relation to the refusal of the proposal now detailed, which was now the subject of an appeal.  This application had been determined in December 2010 and the key issue during that debate was PPS4 and the issues around the test on sequentially preferable sites for the development.

Members were advised that this policy focussed on uses that represent services and  facilities which should be located in town centre locations that were readily accessible to a majority of people.  The Committee was reminded that this proposal had been refused by Members in December 2010 and an appeal had been submitted with hearing dates anticipated for August 2011.

The Director advised that there was little case law in relation to PPS4 and the sequential test and Officers now had to make a judgement as to how to respond to the appeal.  He stated that the advice Officers had received indicated that a considerable amount of further work may be required to amplify the Councils case at appeal. Officers had reassessed the case and felt that spending what would be a significant amount of resources and Officer time on this work, which may ultimately not support the Councils case was not the best way forward.

The Director stated that Officers felt that the Council should not continue to contest the issue of the sequential test for the proposed hotel at appeal and the Committee should confirm to the Planning Inspectorate that it will be offering no evidence in relation to this matter.  Officers were also seeking authority to invite the appellant to re-submit the planning application for consideration.

Councillor N Wilson, as the local ward Member, requested that Members uphold the Officer’s recommendations as now detailed.  He stressed that reasons must be set out as to why the Authority could not defend arguments in support of the residents of the Kingsmead Ward.

Councillor Wilson stated that the applicant had failed to meet the requirements of the local plan.  He expressed concern that not defending the appeal could result in the appeal being allowed for a hotel close to an existing school and against the wishes of local residents.  Councillor Wilson emphasised the acceptance that the site must be developed, but questioned to what cost to Kingsmead Ward.

Councillor J Taylor stated that Members should remember that this was an appeal for a proposed development in Hertford, the County Town.  She stressed that she would like to see the Committee’s decision defended vigorously at appeal with local Councillors attending to speak, as this often carried great weight at appeal hearings.

The Chairman reminded Members that the only reason the application had been refused was in relation to PPS4 and the sequential test and this was an argument that Officers could not, at this stage, be sure could be sustained at appeal.  The Authority would not be able to introduce fresh reasons as to why the application had been refused.

Councillor B Wrangles stated that she felt that residents of Kingsmead Ward were being let down by the Authority not contesting the appeal.  She stated that she would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation and would be asking for her vote to be recorded.

The Director stated that PPS4 was a new policy area that the Authority was still very much finding its way with, in terms of the level of evidence that must be supplied in relation to any given site.  Members were advised that it appeared the test was of a very high level in these cases.

The Committee was advised that the current risk to the Authority was low, but this could increase significantly if the Council continued with its current position.  The costs of defending the appeal could be added to by costs being awarded against the Authority if further work only demonstrated that it was in an unreasonable position. Officers were unsure whether the appellant would pursue the appeal or resubmit a further planning application.  Officers had tried to balance all the risks in relation to the way forward for the Authority.  Members were urged to consider issues carefully in reaching their view.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the Director’s recommendation that the Council should not continue to contest the issue of the sequential test for the proposed hotel at appeal and the Committee should confirm to the Planning Inspectorate that it will be offering no evidence in relation to this matter.  The Committee also authorised Officers to invite the appellant to resubmit the planning application for consideration.

Councillor B Wrangles requested that her vote against the recommendation be recorded.

RESOLVED – that (A) the Council does not continue to contest the issue of the sequential test for the proposed hotel at appeal and confirms to the Planning Inspectorate that it will be offering no evidence in relation to this matter; and

(B)   the appellant be invited to resubmit the planning application for consideration by the Committee.

At this point (9.50 pm), the Committee passed a resolution that the meeting should continue until the completion of the remaining business on the agenda.