Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Wadia addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0658/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

In response to a query from Councillor S Rutland-Barsby, the Director stated that Officers had carefully considered the weight to be applied to the relative impact of an office use when compared to the use now proposed by this application.  He stressed that Members must make a similar judgement when determining this application.

Councillor M Newman commented that he did not accept the views of the Officer as detailed in paragraph 7.8 of the report now submitted.  He referred in particular to traffic generation and parking provision in that he was not satisfied that the proposal would not result in a significant increase in traffic generation over the existing office use and that sufficient parking provision was available within the site.

Councillor M Alexander sought clarification on what County Highways meant when they had questioned the sustainability of the proposals.  The Director advised that Officers understood this to mean that the proposed location would be more sustainable if this was a town centre location with better access to public transport.

The Director advised that Officers felt that policy EDE3 was less relevant than policy EDE2 on this application.  He stressed that Officers had considered the application to be acceptable in policy terms.

In response to concerns from Councillor G Jones with regard to this application setting a precedent, the Director emphasised that Members should restrict their deliberations to primary planning issues, such as traffic, highways and parking implications.

The Director advised caution around Members’ concerns in relation to traffic generation with the proposed use.  He stressed that Members should be careful with any concerns based around assumptions that could not be substantiated.  He also stated that concerns with traffic generation could prove difficult to sustain.

The Director emphasised that the Council’s parking standards were framed as maximum standards and this scheme complied with those of one space per 30 square metres.

Councillor J Taylor proposed and Councillor Mrs R Cheswright seconded, a motion that application 3/11/0658/FP be refused on the grounds that the proposed use would result in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity by virtue of the additional traffic generated in the adjacent residential area of Pishiobury Drive and would thereby be contrary to policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 2007.

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 3/11/0658/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

Councillor W Ashley requested that his dissent with this decision be recorded.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0658/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.    The proposed use would result in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity by virtue of the additional traffic generated in the adjacent residential area of Pishiobury Drive.  The proposal would thereby be contrary to policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 2007.