Public Document Pack
Jeff Hughes Head of Democratic and Legal Support Services
MEETING : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE VENUE : COUNCIL CHAMBER, WALLFIELDS, HERTFORD DATE : WEDNESDAY 20 OCTOBER 2010 TIME : 7.00 PM
PLEASE NOTE TIME AND VENUE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Councillor W Ashley (Chairman). Councillors M R Alexander, K A Barnes, S A Bull, A L Burlton, Mrs R F Cheswright, R N Copping, J Demonti, R Gilbert, Mrs M H Goldspink, G E Lawrence, D A A Peek, S Rutland-Barsby (Vice-Chairman), J J Taylor, R I Taylor and B M Wrangles.
Substitutes
Conservative Group: Councillors D Andrews, P A Ruffles and A L Warman. Liberal Democrat Group: Councillor M Wood. Independent Group: Vacancy.
(Note: Substitution arrangements must be notified by the absent Member to Democratic Services 24 hours before the meeting).
CONTACT OFFICER: PETER MANNINGS (01279) 502174
This agenda has been printed using 100% recycled paper
PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS
1. A Member with a personal interest in any business of the Council who attends a meeting of the Authority at which the business is considered must, with certain specified exemptions (see section 5 below), disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest prior to the commencement of it being considered or when the interest becomes apparent.
2. Members should decide whether or not they have a personal interest in any matter under discussion at a meeting. If a Member decides they have a personal interest then they must also consider whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.
3. A personal interest is either an interest, as prescribed, that you must register under relevant regulations or it is an interest that is not registrable but where the well-being or financial position of you, members of your family, or people with whom you have a close association, is likely to be affected by the business of the Council more than it would affect the majority of inhabitants of the ward(s) affected by the decision.
4. Members with personal interests, having declared the nature of that personal interest, can remain in the meeting, speak and vote on the matter unless the personal interest is also a prejudicial interest.
5. An exemption to declaring a personal interest applies when the interest arises solely from a Member’s membership of or position of general control or management on:
• any other body to which they have been appointed or nominated by the authority • any other body exercising functions of a public nature (e.g another local authority)
In these exceptional cases, provided a Member does not have a prejudicial interest, they only need to declare their interest if they speak. If a Member does not want to speak to the meeting, they may still vote on the matter without making a declaration.
6. A personal interest will also be a prejudicial interest in a matter if all of the following conditions are met:
• the matter does not fall within one of the exempt categories of decisions • the matter affects your financial interests or relates to a licensing or regulatory matter • a member of the public, who knows the relevant facts, would reasonably think your personal interest is so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest.
7. Exempt categories of decisions are:
• setting council tax • any ceremonial honour given to Members • an allowance, payment or indemnity for Members • statutory sick pay • school meals or school transport and travelling expenses: if you are a parent or guardian of a child in full-time education or you are a parent governor, unless it relates particularly to the school your child attends • housing; if you hold a tenancy or lease with the Council, as long as the matter does not relate to your particular tenancy or lease.
8. If you have a prejudicial interest in a matter being discussed at a meeting, you must declare that interest and its nature as soon as the interest becomes apparent to you.
9. If you have declared a personal and prejudicial interest, you must leave the room, unless members of the public are allowed to make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter, by statutory right or otherwise. If that is the case, you can also attend the meeting for that purpose. However, you must immediately leave the room once you have finished or when the meeting decides that you have finished (if that is earlier). You cannot remain in the public gallery to observe proceedings.
AGENDA
1. Apologies
To receive apologies for absence.
2. Chairman's Announcements
3. Declarations of Interest
4. Minutes (Pages 7 - 36).
To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 22 September 2010 and Thursday 30 September 2010 (To Follow).
5. Planning Applications and Unauthorised Development for Consideration by the Committee. (Pages 37 - 42).
(A) 3/10/0386/FP - Redevelopment of 2.15 ha brownfield site to include new Asda foodstore (2601 sqm net); 13 dwellings (5 affordable) with 21 car parking spaces; retention and redesign of children's nursery; retention and refurbishment of Kiln and Maltings buildings together with associated access, 283 car parking spaces (including 10 spaces for nursery), servicing and landscaping, associated highways and pedestrian improvements (as amended) at Cintel site, Watton Road, Ware SG12 OAE for Asda Stores Ltd (Pages 43 - 92).
(B) 3/10/0396/FP - Redevelopment to form 45 Category II type sheltered apartments for the elderly (29x1 bed and 16x2 bed) communal facilities, landscaping and associated car parking at 135 Stansted Road, Bishop's Stortford, CM23 2AL for McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd. (Pages 93 - 114).
(C) (a) 3/10/1396/FP - Erection of extension to provide 43 en-suite bedrooms; (b) 3/10/1401/LB-Erection of extension and glazed link to provide 43 en-suite bedrooms;(c) 3/10/1543/LB - Internal alterations to amalgamate bedrooms in courtyard building at Fanhams Hall Hotel, Fanhams Hall, Fanhams Hall Road, Ware, Hertfordshire, SG12 7PZ for Exclusive Hotels. (Pages 115 - 136).
(D) 3/10/1495/FP - Fifteen caravan pitches with associated parking; extension to access road and construction of toilet and shower building incorporating booking-in office at Westmill Farm, Westmill Road, Westmill, Ware, Herts, SG12 0ES for DJ and DM Vigus (Pages 137 - 148).
(E) 3/10/1454/FP - Change of use of meadow to domestic garden land and retention of two outbuildings (retrospective) at Northleys, High Street, Much Hadham, SG10 6DB for Mr Jeffcoate. (Pages 149 - 158).
(F) 3/10/1285/FP - Single storey side extension, provision of three canopies and ramp at St. Andrews Primary School, Tower Hill, Much Hadham, SG10 6DL for St. Andrews Primary School. (Pages 159 - 166).
(G) 3/10/1074/FP - Single storey rear extension at 74 Pishiobury Drive, Sawbridgeworth, CM21 0AF for Mr and Mrs Steven Barrett. (Pages 167 - 174).
(H) E/08/0331/B - Unauthorised erection of a portacabin building and use of a compound for the storage of redundant frames in connection with the business of "Windowman and Sons", a double glazing company, at Foxholes Farm, London Road, Hertford, SG13 7NT. (Pages 175 - 184).
(I) 3/10/1271/FO – Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission ref. 3/08/1390/FP to allow for the removal of approved pedestrian gate and the provision of pole mounted amber flashing lights mounted at roadside on approach to pedestrian crossing point at Paradise Wildlife Park, White Stubbs Lane, Broxbourne, EN10 7QA - To Follow.
(J) 3/10/0090/FP - Erection of 6 No. Flats, 2 No houses and extension to Public Library at Adams Yard, Maidenhead Street for Atlantic Hertford Ltd – (Amendment of S106 authorisation) - To Follow.
6. Update On Enforcement Statistics And Authorised Action. (Pages 185 - 198).
7. Items for Reporting and Noting (Pages 199 - 236).
(A) Appeals against refusal of Planning Permission/ non-determination.
(B) Planning Appeals Lodged.
(C) Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing Dates.
(D) Planning Statistics.
8. Urgent Business
To consider such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration and is not likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information.
Agenda Item 4 DC DC
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WALLFIELDS, HERTFORD ON WEDNESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2010, AT 7.00 PM
PRESENT: Councillor W Ashley (Chairman) Councillors M R Alexander, K A Barnes, S A Bull, Mrs R F Cheswright, R N Copping, J Demonti, R Gilbert, Mrs M H Goldspink, D A A Peek, S Rutland-Barsby, J J Taylor, R I Taylor, B M Wrangles, D Andrews and A L Warman.
ALSO PRESENT:
Councillors K Darby and R A K Radford.
OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Lorraine Blackburn - Committee Secretary Glyn Day - Principal Planning Enforcement Officer Simon Drinkwater - Director of Neighbourhood Services Kevin Steptoe - Head of Planning and Building Control Alison Young - Development Control Manager
267 APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors A L Burlton and G E Lawrence. It was noted that Councillors A L Warman and D Andrews were in attendance as substitutes for Councillors A L Burlton and G E Lawrence
Page 7 DC DC
respectively.
268 CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman advised that application 3/10/1235/FP had been withdrawn; that application 3/10/1152/FP had been deferred for further consideration of Traffic Regulation Order issues and that application E/10/0156/ had been deferred by Officers.
The Chairman reminded Members regarding the arrangements for training on 29 September 2010.
269 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor B M Wrangles declared a personal interest in applications 3/10/1227/FO, 3/10/1226/FO and E/10/0126B in that she was a personal friend of the applicant.
Councillor D Andrews declared a personal interest in application 3/10/1334/FP in that he had a working relationship with the applicant’s wife.
Councillor R N Copping declared a personal and prejudicial interest in applications 3/10/1227/FO, 3/10/1226/FO and E/10/0126B in that he was a regular customer of the garden centre. He left the room during consideration of these matters.
Councillor S Rutland-Barsby declared a personal and prejudicial interest in applications 3/10/1227/FO, 3/10/1226/FO and E/10/0126B. She left the room during consideration of these matters.
Councillors Mrs R F Cheswright declared a personal interest in applications 3/10/1227/FO, 3/10/1226/FO and E/10/0126B in that she was a customer of the garden centre.
Councillor A L Warman declared a personal interest in
Page 8 DC DC
application 3/10/1198/FP in that he knew the objector representing Molewood Residents’ Association.
270 MINUTES
RESOLVED - that the Minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 25 August 2010 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
271 3/10/1198/FP - ERECTION OF 97 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING, ACCESS, AMENITY SPACE AND LANDSCAPING AT LAND AT SACOMBE ROAD, HERTFORD FOR FAIRVIEW NEW HOMES
Mr Lupton spoke addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. Mr Gough spoke for the application.
The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/10/1198/FP, subject to the applicant or successor in title signing a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.
The Director provided Members with a summary of additional representations received after completion of the report and a list of proposed amendments to the report now presented.
Councillor K Darby stated that she did not support the proposal adding that the application did not fit with the character of the area and referred to the considerable number of letters submitted objecting to the proposal. She referred to the lack of community facilities and the difficulties in relation to traffic into and out of the development. She queried how the community would be integrated with its neighbours. In summary she stated that there were too many unit, it was incompatible with the area, the traffic issues and the danger of it becoming a “poor” neighbour with the character of the area.
Page 9 DC DC
Councillor R N Copping referred to the design of the garages and issues relation to social housing. The Director provided clarification on these issues and stated that on balance with a number of “tweaks” officers were able to recommend approval of the scheme.
Councillor R Gilbert referred to the density of the development and of the traffic issues difficulties which would be created in Bullsmoor Lane and Vicarage Lane. The Director stated that the traffic issues relating to the scheme had been taken into account as part of a traffic assessment undertaken by the applicant and endorsed by Hertfordshire Highways. He suggested that a Directive be added to the conditions relating to Bullsmoor and Vicarage Lane.
Councillor K Barnes was concerned that 127 Bengeo residents had been consulted and that the proposals should have required a consultation for the whole of Bengeo. He was concerned at the loss of a green field site and of the fact that Bengeo was a rat run. He felt that the development was “huge”, that local people were not happy with the proposal and the traffic issues.
Councillor D Andrews felt that flats were in appropriate in that part of Bengeo and was very concerned about parking and a possible shortfall in the Council’s policy. He stated that 97 units was too large.
The Director addressed Members’ concerns regarding the traffic aspects, parking policies and the size of the development.
Councillor S A Bull felt that the application was out of keeping with the area, the density of the units and the need to challenge highways officers on their views.
Councillor Mrs M H Goldspink accepted that the area was designated for housing but was concerned about the adequacy of the parking and stated that Officers should
Page 10 DC DC
ask for something closer to its maximum parking standards. She queried parking provision for visitors given that there was no outside provision.
The Director assured the Member that the Council’s Policies in terms of parking had been met. He stated that given the site’s location had been designated for residential development. He acknowledged that overspills did occur if inadequate parking was available but that this would be at the less busy time for highway use of evening and at weekends.
Councillor S Rutland-Barsby queried what the Council’s position might be if Members refused the application based on density. The Director explained that it would be inappropriate to refuse permission solely on the basis of an identified density number. It would be necessary to articulate what it is about that density that the Council finds unacceptable.
Councillors Mrs R Cheswright referred to the fact that even the County Council did not support this type of development. She stated that Highways Officers comments about only 10% of cars would drive north were wrong. It was a busy area.
Councillor B M Wrangles and Councillor D A A Peek acknowledged Members comments adding that no one had put forward a planning reason for refusal.
Councillor R I Taylor suggested that rather than cramming as many homes on the site, the developers should be considering the amenity of people who will live on the site.
Councillor J J Taylor stated that at the last Highways Joint Member Panel half of the meeting was taken up discussing unresolved traffic issues in this area. She suggested that traffic issues must be a viable reason to refuse the application.
The Director assured Members that the transport and
Page 11 DC DC
traffic issues that been assessed and that it was not reasonable to now suggest that it had not been taken into account.
Members noted the summary of representations provided by the Director of Neighbourhood Services and supported the inclusion of a Directive in relation to Bullsmoor Lane and Vicarage Lane.
After being put the to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that, subject to the applicant or successor in title signing a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, application 3/10/1198/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.
RESOLVED – that (A) subject to the applicant or successor in title varying the legal agreement signed under application 3/10/1198/FP pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to cover the following matters:
1. To provide 39 units of affordable housing with tenure and mix to be agreed. If grant funding of up to £25,000 is received per unit then the breakdown shall be 54% rented 46% intermediate housing. If more than £25,000 is received per unit, then the proportion of rented units shall increase as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
2. To provide 15% Lifetime Homes;
3. £128,375 towards Sustainable Transport initiatives;
4. £254,830 towards Primary Education;
5. £226,531 towards Secondary Education;
Page 12 DC DC
6. £34,140 towards Nursery Education;
7. £13,679 towards Childcare;
8. £4,398 towards Youth facilities;
9. £17,222 towards Libraries;
10. To revamp and improve the existing equipped area of play, and playing fields in accordance with a specification to be agreed plus up to £60,000 for future maintenance;
11. To establish management arrangements for private roads and landscaped amenity areas within the development site; and
12. £300 standard monitoring fee per obligation, therefore 11 x £300 = £3,300.
In respect of application 3/10/1198/FP planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Three Year Time Limit (1T12)
2. Programme of archaeological work (2E02)
3. Levels (2E05)
4. Boundary walls and fences (2E07)
5. Samples of materials (2E12)
6. Refuse disposal facilities (2E24)
7. Cycle Parking Facilities (2E29)
8. New Doors and Windows – unlisted buildings (2E34)
Page 13 DC DC
9. Carried Out in Accordance (2E92)
10. Wheel washing facilities (3V25)
11. Tree retention and protection (4P05)
12. Hedge retention and protection (4P06)
13. Landscape design proposals (4P12 e,i,j,k)
14. Landscape works implementation (4P13)
15. Vehicular use of garage (5U10)
16. Solar thermal and photovoltaic panels shall be installed prior to occupation in accordance with details to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented as agreed.
Reason: In order to achieve the sustainable use of resources in accordance with policies SD1 and ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
17. Prior to the commencement of development, a site waste management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include measures to minimise and re-use/recycle construction waste, and to use recycled materials in the construction of the development.
Reason: To promote sustainable waste management in accordance with policies 3, 7 and 8 of the Waste Local Plan.
18. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, and in
Page 14 DC DC
particular that the surface water run-off generated by the 1 in 100 year critical storm event, accounting for the effects of climate change, shall not exceed the existing greenfield run-off rate from the undeveloped site or increase the risk of flooding off-site.
Reason: To minimise the risk of flooding in accordance with policy ENV19 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and PPS25 ‘Development and Flood Risk’.
19. No development shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include surface water run-off management through soakaways and how surcharge water will be contained within the site boundary. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development.
Reason: To minimise the risk of flooding in accordance with policy ENV19 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and PPS25 ‘Development and Flood Risk’.
20. Before first occupation of the approved development, all access and junction arrangements serving the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and constructed to the specification of the Highway Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the access is constructed to an appropriate specification in the interests of highway safety and
Page 15 DC DC
convenience.
21. No dwelling shall be occupied until visibility splays have been provided at the junction of the estate road with the public highway. The splays shall measure a minimum of 2.4m measured along the centre line of the proposed estate road from its junction with the channel of the public highway and 70m measured from the centre line of the proposed estate road along the line of the channel of the public highway. The vision splays required shall be provided and defined on the site by or on behalf of the developers and be kept free of any obstruction.
Reason: To provide adequate visibility between the existing highway and the access and to make the access safe and convenient for the traffic that is likely to use it.
22. Before first occupation of each new dwelling, the access roads and parking areas serving that dwelling shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans.
Reason: To ensure the development makes adequate provision for the off-street parking and manoeuvring of vehicles.
23. Construction of the development hereby approved shall not commence until details of construction vehicle movements and construction access arrangements have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure the impact of construction vehicles on the local road network is minimised.
Page 16 DC DC
24. The presence of any significant unsuspected contamination that becomes evident during the development of the site shall be brought to the attention of the Local Planning Authority and appropriate mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing.
Reason: To ensure that adequate protection of human health, the environment and water courses is maintained in accordance with PPS23 ‘Planning and Pollution Control’.
25. Any clearancest of vegetationth carried out between 1 March and 30 September shall be supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist and preceded by a nesting bird survey which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason : To protect the habitats of species which are a protected under the Wildlife and Access to the Countryside Act 1981, and in accordance with policy ENV16 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007. Directives:
1. Other Legislation (01OL)
2. The applicant is advised that in order to comply with this permission it will be necessary for the developer to enter into an agreement with the Highway Authority to ensure satisfactory completion of the access and associated road improvements. The applicant is advised to contact the Eastern Herts Highways Area Officer, Hertford House, Meadway Corporate Centre, Rutherford Close, Stevenage, SG1 3HL (Tel 01438 757880) to obtain the requirements on the procedure to enter into the necessary S278 agreement with the Highway Authority prior to
Page 17 DC DC
the commencement of development.
3. Planning Obligation (08PO)
4. Street Naming and Numbering (19SN)
5. The applicant is advised that should reptiles be found during development, works must stop immediately and professional ecological advice taken on how to proceed. Natural England may need to be contacted on 01206 796666.
6. The Council advises that the applicant shall formulate a traffic management scheme relating to the delivery of construction plant and materials to the site and the removal of waste materials from the site. Once formulated, the scheme shall be submitted to the Council and be thereafter implemented.
Summary of Reasons for Decision
The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the 'saved' policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular policies SD1, SD2, HSG3, HSG4, HSG6, TR1, TR2, TR7, TR8, TR13, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV9, ENV10, ENV16, ENV21, BH1, BH2, BH3, LRC3, HE2 and IMP1. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that permission should be granted.
272 3/10/1377/FP - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND HARD STANDINGS AND REDEVELOPMENT WITH FOUR DWELLINGS AT BIRCH FARM, WHITE STUBBS LANE, BROXBOURNE, EN10 7QA FOR MR AND MRS L. BARNES
Page 18 DC DC
Mr Barnes spoke for the application.
The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/1377/FP planning permission be refused for the reasons now detailed.
The Director explained that there was no in principle decision to grant planning permission for a residential development at this site. At the meeting in June 2010, some Members had expressed support but there were concerns about the lack of detail and the amount of development proposed. The application was then deferred to allow the applicant the opportunity of submitting a detailed application to address concerns with regard to the lack of detail and for a bat survey to be undertaken. The Director explained that the application site was on Metropolitan Green Belt land and that any decision to approve the application must have very special circumstances.
Councillor J J Taylor stated that at the meeting on 2 June 2010 the applicant was under the impression that outline permission had been granted. She felt that a residential development on Green Belt land was not appropriate as there were no special circumstances. She acknowledged that the land was an “eye-sore” and that this would tidy up the area but this did not constitute planning permission. Councillor Taylor felt that acceptance of the application would encourage further development on green belt sites.
Councillor R Gilbert confirmed that the application was deferred on 2 June 2010 for the application to undertake a bat survey and for him to submit a full application. He felt that the aim of green belt was to protect and enhance the quality of the countryside and that the proposal would enhance the area acknowledging that the existing buildings could not be refurbished. Councillor Gilbert suggested that the application should be supported under Policies GBC14 and ENV1. Councillor Gilbert reminded Members that they had gone against Policy before citing the Paradise Wildlife Park as an example.
Page 19 DC DC
Councillor K A Barnes suggested that the application had a lot of merit adding that he thought that the majority of Members in June were in favour of the application. He referred to supported of the application by Brickendon parish Council and 17 other letters of support.
The Director stated that Members needed to be mindful of approving an application in the green belt on the basis of tidying up the area. There should be sufficient very special circumstances to outweigh the clear national and local policy of development restraint in the green belt.
Councillor R I Taylor referred to the fact that the whole curtilage was not going to be developed and that the previous attempts to sell the land for equestrian uses had not been successful. He referred to asbestos being removed and felt that these were good reasons to allow planning permission.
Councillor M R Alexander queried whether the application, if approved would be referred to the Secretary of State for decision. The Director confirmed that it would be as it was a departure from Policy.
The Director stated that the main purposes of green belt was to retain the open character of the area. He felt that Members were being overly concerned about tidying up the site reminding Members that there did not appear to be sufficient very special circumstances to approve the application.
After being put the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/10/1377/FP be refused for the reasons now detailed.
RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/1377/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
Page 20 DC DC
1. The application site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined in the East Hertfordshire Local Plan wherein permission will not be given except in very special circumstances for development for purposes other than those required for mineral extraction, agriculture, small scale facilities for participatory sport and recreation or other uses appropriate to a rural area. No such special circumstances are apparent in this case that clearly outweigh the harm, and the proposal is therefore contrary to policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
2. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, height and layout, would be out of keeping with the form and grain of development in the surrounding area, and the landscape character of the area contrary to policies ENV1 and GBC14 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
273 3/10/1227/FO - VARIATION OF CONDITION 9 (3/09/0939/FP) WHICH STATES 'THE USE OF THE PREMISES SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE HOURS 08.00 TO 23.00 MONDAY TO SATURDAY AND 10.00 - 22.00 ON SUNDAYS AND BANK HOLIDAYS' TO READ 'THE USE OF THE RESTAURANT BY CUSTOMERS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE HOURS 08:00-23:00 MONDAY- SATURDAY AND 10:00-22:00 ON SUNDAY AND BANK HOLIDAYS' AT THE RIVERSIDE GARDEN CENTRE, LOWER HATFIELD ROAD, BAYFORD, HERTFORD, HERTS, SG13 8XX FOR RIVERSIDE GARDEN CENTRE LTD
The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/1227/FO, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed. The Director explained that the application to vary condition 9 would remove the restrictive
Page 21 DC DC
requirements of the condition in relation to the garden centre use.
After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/10/1227/FO be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.
RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/1227/FO planning permission be granted and the condition be varied as follows:
1. 'The use of the restaurant by customers shall be restricted to the hours 08:00-23:00 Monday-Saturday and 10:00-22:00 on Sunday and Bank Holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.'
(Councillors R N Copping and S Rutland-Barsby left the room during consideration of this application.
274 3/10/1226/FO - VARIATION OF CONDITION 9 (3/09/0939/FP) WHICH STATES 'THE USE OF THE PREMISES SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE HOURS 08.00 TO 23.00 MONDAY TO SATURDAY AND 10.00 - 22.00 ON SUNDAYS AND BANK HOLIDAYS' TO READ 'THE USE OF THE RESTAURANT BY CUSTOMERS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE HOURS 08:00-23:00 MONDAY- WEDNESDAY, 08:00-00:00 THURSDAY-SATURDAY AND 10:00-22:00 ON SUNDAY AND BANK HOLIDAYS UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED IN WRITING WITH THE COUNCIL' AT THE RIVERSIDE GARDEN CENTRE, LOWER HATFIELD ROAD
The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/1226/FO planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.
Councillor M R Alexander stated that the applicant could apply to vary the application for special events such as
Page 22 DC DC
New Year and suggested that a restriction should be placed on this i.e. between 4-6 requests to vary. This was supported.
After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/10/1226/FO be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.
RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/1226/FO, planning permission be granted subject to the following condition:
1. The use of the restaurant by customers shall be restricted to the hours 08:00 – 23:00 Monday – Wednesday, 08:00 – 00:00 (midnight) Thursday –Saturday and 10:00 – 22:00 on Sunday and Bank Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The number of amendments to be up to a maximum of 6 occasions within any calendar year.
(Councillors R N Copping and S Rutland-Barsby left the room during consideration of this application.
275 3/10/1178/FP - AMENDMENT TO LPA REFERENCE 3/09/0118/FP TO PROVIDE 2 INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE UNITS (B1C, B2, AND B8) WITH ANCILLARY OFFICE AND AMENITY ACCOMMODATION AT 4 - 6 RAYNHAM ROAD INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAYNHAM ROAD, BISHOP'S STORTFORD, CM23 5PB FOR HOWARD STANSTED LIMITED
The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/1178/FP planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.
The Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application
Page 23 DC DC
3/10/1178/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.
RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/1178/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Three Year Time Limit (1T121)
2. Levels (2E05)
3. Materials arising from demolition (2E32)
4. Provision and retention of parking spaces (3V234)
5. Wheel Washing Facilities (3V25)
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of noise attenuation measures to be used in the design and construction of the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents, in accordance with Policy ENV24 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
7. Prior to the commencement of works on site, details of the design of building foundations shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority,in consultation with the Environment Agency, and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the protection of
Page 24 DC DC
groundwater from contamination in accordance with policy ENV20 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
8. Prior to the commencement of the development, a surface water drainage plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Environment Agency, and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved plan.
Reason: To ensure the protection of groundwater from contamination in accordance with policy ENV20 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
9. No external working (6N06)
10. Construction hours of working- plant & machinery (6N072)
11. Tree retention and protection (4P053)
12. Tree planting (4P154)
13. No external loudspeakers (2E253)
14. The buildings hereby permitted shall be used for Class B1c, B2 and B8 and for no other purposes including any other purpose in Class B of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.
Reason : To ensure that no alternative use is made of the premises which would be likely to result in a need for additional parking. Directives:
1. Other legislation (01OL1) 2. In relation to condition 7 piling or other
Page 25 DC DC
foundation designs using penetrative methods are unlikely to be deemed acceptable.
3. The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Control of Pollution Act 1974 relating to the control of noise on construction and demolition sites.
4. If the site is known to be contaminated you should be aware that the responsibility for safe development and secure occupancy of the site lies with the developer.
Summary of Reasons for Decision
The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular saved policies ENV1, ENV2, ENV20, ENV23, ENV24, EDE1, EDE4, BIS9 and TR7. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies and approval of planning permission within LPA reference 3/09/0118/FP is that permission should be granted.
276 3/10/1209/FP - ERECTION OF FENCING AND GATES TO FRONT AND FLANK BOUNDARIES AT HIGH WYCH JMI PRIMARY SCHOOL, HIGH WYCH ROAD, SAWBRIDGEWORTH, CM21 0JB FOR HIGH WYCH SCHOOL
The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/1209/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.
The Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application
Page 26 DC DC
3/10/1209/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.
RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/1209/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Three year time limit (1T12)
2. Samples of Materials (2E12) - amended
Summary of Reasons for Decision
The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular ‘saved’ policies GBC1, ENV1, BH6 and PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that permission should be granted.
277 A) 3/10/1095/FP AND B) 3/10/1096/LB - PART SINGLE AND PART TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSIONS, INTERNAL ALTERATIONS AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SIDE EXTENSION AT 1, BURY GREEN COTTAGE, BURY GREEN, LITTLE HADHAM, SG11 2EY FOR MR FANKHAM
The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommending that, in respect of application 3/10/1095/FP planning permission be granted subject to the condition now detailed. The Director also recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/1096/LB listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.
The Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/10/1095/FP and 3/10/1096/LB be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.
Page 27 DC DC
RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/10/1095/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following condition:
1. Three year time limit (1T12).
Summary of Reasons for Decision
The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the saved policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular policies GBC3, ENV1, ENV2, ENV5, ENV6 and BH6. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies and the limited harm to the character, appearance or openness of this rural area is that permission should be granted.
(B) in respect of application 3/10/1096/LB, listed building consent be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Listed building three year time limit (1T14)
2. Samples of Materials (2E12)
3. Listed building (New Windows) (8L03)
4. Listed Building (New Doors) (8L04)
5. Listed Building (New Brickwork) (8L06)
6. Listed Building (New External Rendering) (8L08)
7. Listed Building (Rainwater Goods) (8L09)
8. Listed building (Making Good) (8L10)
Page 28 DC DC
Summary of Reasons for Decision
The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the saved policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that consent should be granted.
278 3/10/1252/FP - 1 ½ STOREY REAR EXTENSION WITH NEW RAISED ROOF AND PROVISION OF DORMER WINDOWS AT LOWER FARM BUNGALOW, EAST END, FURNEUX PELHAM, SG9 0JT FOR MRS ELLIMAN
The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/1252/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.
The Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/10/1252/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.
RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/1252/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Three Year Time Limit (1T121) Directive:
1. Other legislation (01OL1)
Summary of Reasons for Decision
The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste
Page 29 DC DC
Local Plan and East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular policies GBC3, ENV1, ENV5 and ENV6. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies and the limited harm to the character and appearance or openness of this rural site from the development, is that permission should be granted.
279 3/10/1334/FP - REAR CONSERVATORY AT BARN COTTAGE, DASSELS, BRAUGHING, SG11 2RW FOR MR LANGLEY
The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of planning application 3/10/1334/FP, planning permission be refused for the reason now detailed.
Councillor Mrs R Cheswright stated that the conservatory was modest and that the proposal was in keeping with the character of the area and should be approved.
Councillor R N Copping stated that the conservatory was not large and supported approval of the application.
Councillor D Andrews supported the application.
After being put to the vote, the Committee rejected the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/10/1334/FP be refused and granted planning permission subject to the conditions now detailed.
RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/1334/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Three year time limit (1T12)
Summary of Reasons for Decision
The proposal has been considered with regard to
Page 30 DC DC
the policies of the Development Plan (Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the 'saved' policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular policies GBC, ENV1, ENV5 and ENV6. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that permission should be granted.
280 3/10/0917/FP - SINGLE STOREY FRONT AND SIDE EXTENSION AT 1 BLUE HILL FARM COTTAGES FOR MR COLIN STANLEY
The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/0917/FP planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.
The Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/10/0917/FP be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.
RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/0917/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Three Year Time Limit (1T121)
2. Matching Materials (2E13) Directive:
1. Other legs (010L).
Summary of Reasons for Decision
The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (East of England Plan May 2008, Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the saved policies of the East Herts Local
Page 31 DC DC
Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular policies GBC1, ENV1, ENV5 and ENV6. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that permission should be granted.
281 E/10/0126/B - A) BREACH OF CONDITION 11 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 3/09/0939/FP IN RESPECT OF FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT AND B) UNAUTHORISED ERECTION OF A MARQUEE AT RIVERSIDE GARDEN CENTRE, LOWER HATFIELD ROAD, HERTFORD, SG13 8XX
The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of the site relation to E/10/0126/B no further action be taking in respect of the breach of condition 11 and that the Director of Neighbourhood Services in consultation with the Director of Internal Services, be authorised to take enforcement action under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any such further steps as may be required to secure the removal of the unauthorised marquee from the land.
The committee noted that no further action being proposed in relation to condition 11 of 3/09/0939/FP was in reflection of further work that had been undertaken by the applicant and Officers to ensure that the issues addressed by that condition were satisfactorily dealt with.
After being put to the meeting and a vote taken the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of neighbourhood Services that, no further action be taken in relation to the breach of condition 11 on planning permission reference 3/09/0939/FP and that enforcement action be taken be authorised in respect of the site relation to E/10/0126/B on the basis now detailed.
RESOLVED – that (A) no further action be taken in relation to the breach of condition 11 on planning permission reference 3/09/0939/FP; and
Page 32 DC DC
(B) that in respect of application E/10/0126B the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Director of Internal Services, be authorised to take enforcement action under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any such further steps as may be required to secure the removal of the unauthorised marquee from the land.
Period for compliance: 28 days.
Reasons why it is expedient to issue an enforcement notice:
1. The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined in the East Hertfordshire Local Plan wherein permission will not be given except in very special circumstances for development for purposes other than those required for mineral extraction, agriculture, small scale facilities for participatory sport and recreation or other uses appropriate to a rural area. No such special circumstances are apparent in this case, and the development is therefore be contrary to saved policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and to national policy contained in paragraph 3.4 of PPG2.
2. The marquee, by reason of its size, siting and detailed appearance is detrimental to the openness and character of the surrounding area and is therefore contrary to saved policies GBC1 and ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and national planning guidance in PPS1 'Delivering Sustainable Development' para 34.
(Councillors R N Copping and S Rutland-Barsby left the room during consideration of this application.
Page 33 DC DC
282 E/10/0072/B - UNAUTHORISED EXTENSIONS TO DANES LODGE, 36 LITTLE BERKHAMSTED LANE, LITTLE BERKHAMSTED, SG13 8LU
The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of the site relation to E/10/0072/B enforcement action be authorised on the basis now detailed.
The Committee supported the Director’s recommendation for enforcement action to be authorised in respect of the site relation to E/10/0072/B on the basis now detailed.
RESOLVED – that in respect of E/10/0072/B the Director of Neighbourhood Services in consultation with the Director of Internal Services, be authorised to take enforcement action under Section 712 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any such further steps as may be required to secure the removal of the unauthorised development from the land.
Period for compliance: 3 months.
Reasons why it is expedient to issue an enforcement notice:
1. The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined in the East Hertfordshire Local Plan wherein permission will not be given except in very special circumstances for development for purposes other than those required for mineral extraction, agriculture, small scale facilities for participatory sport and recreation; limited extensions to existing dwellings or other uses appropriate to a rural area. No such special circumstances are apparent in this case, and the development is not considered to constitute a limited extension. It is therefore contrary to saved
Page 34 DC DC
policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and to National policy contained in paragraph 3.4 of PPG2.
2. The extensions are of an excessive size in relation to the original dwelling, and of a scale and design that is out of keeping with its character and appearance as a lodge house and to the character of the area as a whole. It is therefore contrary to saved policies GBC1, ENV1 and ENV5 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and to National policy contained in paragraph 3.4 of PPG2.
283 E/10/0209/A-UNAUTHORISED WORKS TO THE FRONT GARDEN AT 7 WINDMILL WAY, MUCH HADHAM, HERTS,SG10 6BG
The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of the site relation to E/10/0209/A enforcement action be authorised on the basis now detailed.
The Director explained that he had been in contact with Circle Anglia Officers explaining their responsibilities to advise tenants in relation to planning issues.
After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the Director’s recommendation for enforcement action to be authorised in respect of the site relation to E/10/0209/A on the basis now detailed.
RESOLVED – that in respect of E/10/0208/A the Director of Neighbourhood Services in consultation with the Director of Internal Services be authorised to take enforcement action under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any such further steps as may be required to secure the reinstatement of the front garden it its former condition.
Page 35 DC DC
Period for compliance: 3 months
Reason why it is expedient to issue an enforcement notice:
1. The unauthorised development, by reason of the loss of soft landscaping within the site and the extent of hard landscaping carried out is detrimental to the verdant character and appearance of the locality and is thereby contrary to policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
284 ITEMS FOR REPORTING AND NOTING
RESOLVED – that the following reports be noted:
(A) Appeals against refusal of planning permission / non determination.
(B) Planning Appeals lodged
(C) Planning Appeals: Inquiry and informal Hearing dates; and
(D) Planning Statistics.
The Chairman, on behalf of Members thanked the officers for their continuing efforts in achieving positive performance.
The meeting closed at 8.59 pm
Chairman ......
Date ......
Page 36 Agenda Item 5
EAST HERTS COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 20 OCTOBER 2010
REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES
5. PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND UNAUTHORISED DEVELOPMENT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMITTEE
WARD(S) AFFECTED: As identified separately for each application and unauthorised development matter.
Purpose/Summary of Report
• To enable planning and related applications and unauthorised development matters to be considered and determined by the Committee, as appropriate, as set out in Essential Reference Paper B.
RECOMMENDATION FOR DECISION:
(A) A recommendation is set out separately for each application and unauthorised development matter.
1.0 Display of Plans
1.1 Plans for consideration at this meeting will be displayed outside the Council Chamber from 5.00 pm on the day of the meeting. An Officer will be present from 6.30 pm to advise on plans if required. A selection of plans will be displayed electronically at the meeting. Members are reminded that those displayed do not constitute the full range of plans submitted for each matter and they should ensure they inspect those displayed outside the room prior to the meeting.
2.0 Implications/Consultations
2.1 Information on any corporate issues and consultation associated with this report can be found within Essential Reference Paper ‘A’ .
Background Papers The papers which comprise each application/ unauthorised development file. In addition, the East of England Plan, Hertfordshire County Council’s Minerals and Waste documents, the East Hertfordshire Local Plan and, where appropriate, the saved policies from the Hertfordshire
Page 37 County Structure Plan, comprise background papers where the provisions of the Development Plan are material planning issues.
Contact Member: Malcolm Alexander – Executive Member for Community Safety and Protection.
Contact Officers: Kevin Steptoe – Head of Planning and Building Control, Extn: 1407. Alison Young – Development Control Manager, Extn: 1553.
Page 38 ESSENTIAL REFERENCE PAPER ‘A’ AGENDA ITEM 5
Contribution to Promoting prosperity and well-being; providing the Council’s access and opportunities Corporate Enhance the quality of life, health and wellbeing of Priorities/ individuals, families and communities, particularly those Objectives who are vulnerable.
Caring about what’s built and where Care for and improve our natural and built environment.
Shaping now, shaping the future Safeguard and enhance our unique mix of rural and urban communities, ensuring sustainable, economic and social opportunities including the continuation of effective development control and other measures.
Leading the way, working together Deliver responsible community leadership that engages with our partners and the public. Consultation: As set out separately in relation to each matter. Legal: As set out separately in relation to each matter if any are appropriate. Financial: As set out separately in relation to each matter if any are appropriate. Human As set out separately in relation to each matter if any are Resource: appropriate. Risk As set out separately in relation to each matter if any are Management: appropriate.
Page 39 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 40 ESSENTIAL REFERENCE PAPER B AGENDA ITEM 5
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION BY COMMITTEE – 20 OCTOBER 2010
Item Reference No Application Page No No
5a 3/10/0386/FP Redevelopment of 2.15 ha brownfield site to 43 R Major include new Asda foodstore (2601 sqm net); 13 dwellings (5 affordable) with 21 car parking spaces; retention and redesign of children’s nursery; retention and refurbishment of Kiln and Maltings buildings together with associated access, 283 car parking spaces (including 10 spaces for nursery), servicing and landscaping, associated highways and pedestrian improvements (as amended) at Cintel site, Watton Road, Ware SG12 OAE for Asda Stores Ltd.
5b 3/10/0396/FP Redevelopment to form 45 Category II type 93 S106/G Major sheltered apartments for the elderly (29x1 bed and 16x2 bed) communal facilities, landscaping and associated car parking at 135 Stansted Road, Bishop’s Stortford, CM23 2AL for McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd.
5c 3/10/1396/FP (a) - Erection of extension to provide 43 en-suite 115 R Major bedrooms; 3/10/1401/LB (b) - Erection of extension and glazed link to G Other provide 43 en-suite bedrooms; and 3/10/1543/LB (c) - Internal alterations to amalgamate G Other bedrooms in courtyard building at Fanhams Hall Hotel, Fanhams Hall, Fanhams Hall Road, Ware, Hertfordshire, SG12 7PZ for Exclusive Hotels.
5d 3/10/1495/FP Fifteen caravan pitches with associated parking; 137 G Minor extension to access road and construction of toilet and shower building incorporating booking- in office at Westmill Farm, Westmill Road, Westmill, Ware, Herts, SG12 0ES for DJ and DM Vigus.
5e 3/10/1454/FP Change of use of meadow to domestic garden 149 G Minor land and retention of two outbuildings (retrospective) at Northleys, High Street, Much Hadham, SG10 6DB for Mr Jeffcoate.
Page 41 Item Reference No Application Page No No
5f 3/10/1285/FP Single storey side extension, provision of three 159 G Minor canopies and ramp at St. Andrews Primary School, Tower Hill, Much Hadham, SG10 6DL for St. Andrews Primary School.
5g 3/10/1074/FP Single storey rear extension at 74 Pishiobury 167 G Other Drive, Sawbridgeworth, CM21 0AF for Mr and Mrs Steven Barrett.
5h E/08/0331/B Unauthorised erection of a portacabin building 175 E Enforcement and use of a compound for the storage of redundant frames in connection with the business of “Windowman and Sons”, a double glazing company, at Foxholes Farm, London Road, Hertford, SG13 7NT.
5i 3/10/1271/FO Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission Major ref. 3/08/1390/FP to allow for the removal of approved pedestrian gate and the provision of pole mounted amber flashing lights mounted at roadside on approach to pedestrian crossing point at Paradise Wildlife Park, White Stubbs Lane, Broxbourne, EN10 7QA - To Follow.
5j 3/10/0090/FP 3/10/0090/FP - Erection of 6 No. Flats, 2 No S106 Minor houses and extension to Public Library at Adams Yard, Maidenhead Street for Atlantic Hertford Ltd – (Amendment of S106 authorisation) - To Follow.
Page 42 Agenda Item 5a 5A. 3/10/0386/FP - Redevelopment of 2.15 ha brownfield site to include new Asda foodstore (2601 sqm net); 13 dwellings (5 affordable) with 21 car parking spaces; retention and redesign of children’s nursery; retention and refurbishment of Kiln and Maltings buildings together with associated access, 283 car parking spaces (including 10 spaces for nursery), servicing and landscaping, associated highways and pedestrian improvements (as amended) at Cintel site, Watton Road, Ware SG12 OAE for Asda Stores Ltd
Date of Receipt: 03.03.2010 Type: Full - Major
Parish: WARE
Ward: WARE – ST MARYS
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons
1. The Crane Mead/Swains Mill site provides an alternative site which is available, viable and suitable and therefore sequentially preferable to the proposed food store at the application site. The proposal has therefore failed to demonstrate that the sequential test of PPS4 has been satisfied and would be contrary to Policies EC14, EC15 and EC17 of national planning guidance in PPS4 Planning for Economic Growth and Policy STC1 and STC6 of the East Herts Local Plan April 2007.
2. Inadequate information has been provided to satisfactorily demonstrate the site’s impact upon the vitality and viability of the Ware Town Centre. The development is therefore contrary to Policies EC14, EC16 and EC17 of national planning guidance in PPS4 Planning for Economic Growth and Policy STC1 and STC6 of the East Herts Local Plan April 2007.
(038610FP.TH)
1.0 Background
1.1 The application site, known as the Cintel site, Ware measures 2.15 ha,
once used by Rank Cintel; it lies in a mixed commercial and residentialth area to the north west of Ware town centre and comprises mostly 20 century
buildings formerlyth in B1 (office), B2 (industrial) and B8 (storage) uses as well as a 19 century kiln and maltings. The employment uses at the site have been in decline over recent years partly as the discussions over planning applications for its redevelopment have continued. The site is shown on the attached OS extract.
Page 43 3/10/0386/FP
1.2 The site is on the B1001 Watton Road, which connects the town centre with the A10 bypass. The “Angels at Play” Children’s Nursery operates from a converted former canteen building in the south east corner of the site. The 1970’s office block, Cintel House, with three storeys above ground floor parking is the largest and most prominent building on the site. Watton House, two storeys high, has been refurbished to provide improved accommodation but much of the other accommodation is quite basic and includes warehousing space. Park Road defines the southern edge of the site and divides it from the Buryfields Park. On the western section of the site, in a backland location at the rear of dwellings in Fanshawe Crescent and Park Road, is a disused three storey car park.
th 1.3 There is a 19 century Kiln with Maltings on the Park Road frontage which is considered to be of local heritage significance. There was an unsuccessful attempt to list this building by the Council, but instead the former site owner was granted immunity from listing in 2006. The particular
interest of the building arises due to the large quantities ofth the rare Hitch Brick once produced at this site for a limited period in the 19 Century. The Maltings includes probably the largest example of hitch bricks in an industrial building. While two previous applications at the site have in whole or in part proposed to demolish this building, the current application would repair, enhance and re-use the entire structure within the development.
1.4 Two major planning applications at the site have been withdrawn in the last four years, most recently in November 2008 (3/08/1531/FP ) a mixed use scheme for a 36,000 sq ft food store (3,366 sqm net) including offices, a 70 bed residential care home and retention of children’s nursery. Prior to that in September 2006, a proposal for 127 flats, 45 assisted living units and a retained nursery was considered. Both applications were withdrawn prior to committee determination in the knowledge of local residents’ and planning officers’ objections.
1.5 The planning application now subject of this report was received in March this year following a long period of preparation, negotiation and public consultation by the applicant. Meetings were held with officers and with the residents group Cintel Residents Committee. A public exhibition of the plans was held in February 2010.
1.6 The application is also subject of a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA), the first for East Hertfordshire. The PPA is a means for local planning authorities and applicants to work more collaboratively on complex applications with agreed planning objectives and sets out a timetable with
Page 44 3/10/0386/FP
key milestones and a target date for a decision with associated S106 agreement. Due to the length of time taken to consider aspects of the application, in particular highways and retail issues, this PPA has been revised to agree a final decision is reached by the end of October 2010.
1.7 The planning application is for a mixed use scheme providing a new store of approximately 26,000 sq ft (2,601 sqm) net sales area comprising 1820 sqm convenience sales and 780 sqm comparison (non-food) sales. The gross floor area is 6753 sqm. The total floorspace is reduced from 36,000 sq ft (3,366 sq m) net in the 2008 application. The reduction of store sales area from the previous application is approximately 23%. Parking for 283 vehicles is proposed below the store and in a decked car park to the east, 10 parking spaces are dedicated for the nursery use. The application provides for the redesign and retention of the children’s nursery. The care home proposal is now replaced by a proposed scheme of 13 dwellings on the western section of the site.
1.8 Other significant changes from the 2008 application include
o the retention of the Hitch Brick Maltings as well as the Kiln;
o the redesign of the built form to respond to the town’s maltings history;
o the relocation of the service yard further from residents and alteration to servicing with access only at Park Road and exit only onto Watton Road;
o the design of a T junction to Watton Road in place of a roundabout; the redesign of the Children’s Nursery with a pitched roof.
o the use of Park Road for service vehicle access requires part demolition of the dwelling at 54 Park Road to enable the access to be widened.
o a stronger landscaping element to Park Road and Watton Road frontages as well as landscape buffers around the site including acoustic screens
o A footpath access along the east site boundary is omitted in favour of a central route which passes the main store entrance.
1.9 Pre application discussions with residents have brought assurances that delivery hours will be limited to between 7:00 am and 22:00 pm and opening hours between 8:00am and 22:00 pm (except Sundays and BankPage Holidays). 45 3/10/0386/FP
1.10 The application has been submitted with documentation as follows:-
• Planning and Retail Statement (Planning Potential) • Design and Access Statement (HGP Architects ) • Landscape Design Statement and Tree Survey (Fabrik) • Linkage Options Statement (Fabrik ) • Transport Statement, Parking Assessment and Travel Plan (Cottee Transport Planning) • Air Quality and Noise Assessment Statements (SKM Enviros ) • Ecological Assessment (Ecology Solutions ) • Geo Environmental Appraisal (GD Partnership Ltd) • Sustainability Statement (Planning Potential) • Arboricultural Statement ( RPS ) • Flood Risk Assessment ( RPS ) • Archaeology (HCC email dated 2 Feb 2010) • Lighting scheme (Abacus lighting) • Statement of Community Involvement (Asda Stores Ltd)
1.11 In April 2010 the Co-op announced its intention to develop a store at Star Street. In June 2010 Waitrose indicated that they are preparing an application for a 15,000 sq ft (1394 sqm) store at the Swains Mill Site in Crane Mead Ware. Both have submitted objections to the Asda application.
1.12 As part of the retail submissions, the applicants have made submissions on the sequential test considerations of the potential alternative sites at Swains Mill (Waitrose) and Star Street (Co-op).
2.0 Site History
2.1 There is a long history of applications at the site but the most relevant planning history to the current application is
• 3/02/0597/FP: Change of use to children’s day nursery. Granted August 2002. • 3/03/0915/FP : Permission granted for fitness gym in August 2003 • 3/06/1892/FP: Redevelopment for 127 new dwellings (51 affordable) and the erection of 45 very sheltered flats for the elderly, retention of offices and children’s nursery. Withdrawn December 2006. • 3/08/1531/FP Mixed use redevelopment to include residential care home, restoration of Kiln Building, retention of children's nursery and new foodstore. Associated car parking and landscaping . Withdrawn November 2008.
Page 46 3/10/0386/FP
2.2 In Ware, the extension of the Tesco store in the town centre was approved in June 1994 with additional car parking (Ref: 3/94/0799/FP). Proposals for a 66,000 sq ft store at Crane Mead (Ref: 3/93/1692/ZA) were made but dismissed on appeal in January 1995.
2.3 In Hertford a new 26,900 sq ft (2502 sqm) Sainsbury’s store (3/08/1528/FP) was granted planning permission earlier this year by the Secretary of State and an approved extension to the existing Hertford Tesco Store (3/09/1282/FP) increased its net sales floorspace to 29,200 sq ft (2714 sqm).
Hertford and Ware Food stores
Existing / Convenience Comparison Total Proposed (sqm) (sqm) Sales Stores (sqm) Tesco 2443 271 2714 Hertford Sainsbury, 1862 466 2328 Hertford Tesco 1879 332 2211 Ware Waitrose 1170 ---- 1170 Hertford Asda, 1820 780 2610 Ware Waitrose, 1394 ----- 1394 Ware Co-op 370 ----- 370 Ware
3.0 Consultation Responses
3.1 Chase and Partners , retail consultants to this Council, advise that PPS4 places a clear onus on the applicant to conclusively demonstrate that the proposed development is in compliance with the sequential approach; does not have “significant adverse impact” and is satisfactory in all other respects.
3.2 With regards to the sequential approach Chase base their views on broadly agreed distances that the Asda store would be at its closest 297m from the secondary frontage at Baldock Street compared with 264m for a potential Waitrose store connecting to secondary frontage in Amwell End; and Asda would be over 500m from the nearest primary shopping frontage in the High Street whereas Waitrose would be only 287m from the primary shopping frontage in Amwell End. Due to its physical proximity Chase therefore consider the Swains Mill/Crane Mead site for Waitrose to be potentiallyPage 47 a 3/10/0386/FP
‘sequentially preferable’ alternative to the Cintel site although the success of any scheme, as for Asda’s scheme, rests on the ability to deliver good pedestrian links to the existing town centre. This is only a potential alternative due to some uncertainty in the absence of a planning application by Waitrose. As such based on the advice in Policy EC17.1 of PPS4 the applicants have failed to demonstrate there is no available, suitable or viable alternative and the application should be refused.
3.3 With respect to the Star Street site for a proposed Co-op, Chase and Partners have advised that it is available and may be viable but as a smaller store it is not capable of enhancing consumer choice and not therefore a suitable alternative location to the proposed Asda development. They also note that no planning application has been received even though one was promised last May.
3.4 They state that the impact test is not of significance if the sequential test fails but nonetheless have doubts about the methodology and figures. Following objections raised by Co-op and Waitrose about the figures submitted on turnover and impact they sought further analysis. They state that Asda’s subsequent analysis has probably raised more questions than answers. As matters stand Chase and Partners consider the applicant has failed to provide the clear evidence required by PPS4 that the store would not cause demonstrable harm to the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole. While it is not proven that there will be harm the onus is on applicants to demonstrate this by PPS4.
3.5 Their final overview of the retail arguments is attached as an appendix to this report.(Appendix A). While they maintain their view that the sequential test is not satisfied, they accept that the Swains Mill site may be too small to accommodate a store of the size proposed by Asda. Their judgment is that the benefits of a new (Asda) fascia and a larger store in the area are not such as to reject the Swains Mill site for being deemed unsuitable to accommodate one, although they accept others (local members and residents) may make a different judgement. With regards to impact although the retail assessment is far from satisfactory their analysis indicates the proposal is unlikely to materially affect the vitality and viability of the Ware town centre as a whole, although there is an equal danger of the benefits being overstated.
3.6 County Highways have recommended approval of the application subject to relevant planning conditions and agreed S106 obligations notwithstanding anticipated worsening congestion around the site. The modelling has undergone a number of revisions and although not fully validated, it does form a basis to consider the likely future impact of the Page 48development. 3/10/0386/FP
3.7 They have agreed the trip rates within the Transport Assessment e.g. 259 arrivals, 267 departures in the Friday evening peak hour and 264 arrivals, 274 departures in the Saturday lunch peak hour, and that 10 – 30 % of trips are accounted for by passing traffic already on the network. Trip rates for the existing site and use however have not been agreed.
3.8 From 2011 to 2016 with background growth, even without the proposals, the highway network will become over saturated with significant queues forming. The addition of the development to this will obviously increase queues as physical improvements are not possible for the Park Rd/Watton Rd and Baldock St/Watton Rd roundabouts. It is essential that any development on this site contributes significantly to the recently developed transport plan to mitigate any impact.
3.9 The agreed S106 amounts are £365,000 for bus service improvements as the site is poorly served at present. £232,000 for general sustainable transport provisions. £80,000 for traffic calming within Fanshawe Crescent . £25,000 for residents parking scheme and the implementation of the approved Green Travel Plan.
3.10 HCC advise that if the local planning authority considers there is no benefit or need for a retail proposal, it could be considered that the additional congestion impact is also not acceptable as alternative mixed use development scenarios will not generate the same level of traffic congestion.
3.11 Highways say that the proposals have been assessed by safety audit and the physical design of the highway proposals are acceptable from a safety point of view.
3.12 While the parking provision for the store (as for the nursery) is below maximum provision there is a range for Zone 4 sites, and with sustainable transport provisions it may be appropriate to consider Zone 3 reductions. They consider the parking to be generally in line with other recent store permissions in this area., one space per 9.6 sqm retail floorspace is comparable to one space per 10 sqm for the recently approved Hertford Sainsbury’s and Tesco’s Hertford approved extension. A robust package of sustainable transport measures is essential to support the provision of reduced parking.
3.13 Highways are content that servicing takes place from Park Road. They anticipate there will be 7–8 artic deliveries a day and approve of the agreed route for service vehicles to the store via the A1170 Wadesmill Road direction. A layby in Canons Road will provide for the existing Londis store.
Page 49 3/10/0386/FP
3.14 They consider the submitted travel plan and other details such as the bus stop location, the pedestrian and cycle routes to be acceptable and necessary to be secured by planning condition.
3.15 Following the receipt of further information on flood risk the Environment Agency has withdrawn an earlier objection. It requires a planning condition that floor levels are set no lower than 36.76m (AOD) in order to reduce the risk of flooding to future occupants
3.16 English Heritage observe that significant changes have been made to the proposal which it welcomes. The store has been reduced but it is still a large element to assimilate in the conservation area. They are pleased to see the retention of the entire maltings range, the retention in part of 54/56 Park Road and the nursery too which will help to integrate the new scheme into this important street frontage.
3.17 The new housing is seen as somewhat bland and repetitive and the timber balustrade to Watton Road may not prove durable and they recommend attention to these issues.
3.18 The County Archaeologist comments are informed by the completion of three trial trenches in February 2010. The Roman Road Ermine Street crossed the site and nearby sites suggest there may be further evidence of Roman occupation present with potential for earlier prehistoric activity (Mesolithic and Neolithic). She has noted the scheme retains the significant and locally important maltings and kiln complex. These are remarkable for their rare use of hitch bricks in the construction. It is recommended that a ground works and programme of archaeological works condition be applied and in the event of permission she will be happy to provide a design brief for this.
3.19 Natural England welcomes the submission of the ecological survey and refers to its standing advice on protected species. They make no objections.
3.20 Herts Biological Records Centre makes recommendation on conditions to safeguard protected species of bats and reptiles as well as avoiding clearance affecting breeding birds.
3.21 Veolia Water advises the site is within the Musley Hill Pumping Station source protection zone and that works should be carried out in accordance with the relevant British Standards.
3.22 The Herts County Development Unit recommends a condition for a site Waste Management Plan. Page 50 3/10/0386/FP
3.23 East Herts Planning Policy advise refusal of the application on the basis of the alternative site being available for development and sequentially preferable. As it stands, there is a site located closer to the town centre than the proposed Asda site although it is acknowledged that improvements to pedestrian links would have to be delivered. The alternative is also closer to other town centre facilities such Ware Station. A supermarket at this (Waitrose) site would provide sufficient consumer choice to offer competition and expand the range of retail offer within the proximity of Ware Town Centre at a level that supports Ware’s role as a minor town centre (Local Plan – para 7.5.1) providing local convenience needs. At a smaller size a supermarket would have limited flexibility in terms of providing a non- food offer. This could help to reduce any potential impacts on Ware’s existing comparison goods stores. Neither site is particularly well-linked to the town centre and both would need considerable work to improve their connectivity to the main shopping areas)
3.24 With regard to sustainability, it is recommended the Combined Heat and Power element provide for the store and the housing and clarification is requested on what the sustainable drainage scheme will be.
3.25 The Conservation Officer is encouraged that one of the key historic assets identified, the Maltings and Kiln buildings are to be brought into beneficial use. Surveys, repairs for the maltings and hard paving proposals for the Kiln need assessment. The concept of the development reflects the Buryfields Maltings site. 54 Park Road is also identified as a local heritage asset.
3.26 Although it would be subject of separate application, there is concern about corporate signage on Park Road. This and other detailed suggestions for the Park Road and Watton Road frontages have been responded to. The overall design has taken into consideration the architectural and historic character of the Kiln, Maltings and the adjacent Conservation Area of Ware.
3.27 The Landscape Officer has recommended refusal of the plans. He comments that the general landscape layout has evolved as part of the planning process and is acceptable and will have a major impact on the appearance of the public realm. If permission is granted conditions are required to take the detail to the next level. The loss of trees along Watton Road is noted as these have group value but this loss will be mitigated by new tree planting.
3.28 The loss or reduction of the nursery play space is a major detractor in his view although partly mitigated by the new toddler play space in Buryfields. His major objection is to the 4m acoustic fence which bounds the service yard which hides planting behind it. There will be no benefit to the landscaping behind it and the fence itself will be visually dominantPage to people 51 3/10/0386/FP
arriving and exiting the store by car. He recommends the fence be resited to the rear boundary of properties in Fanshawe Crescent. If this point can be addressed then on balance the proposals are considered to be acceptable in landscape terms.
3.29 The East Herts Housing Development Manager has advised that the 5 affordable houses will go some way to meet the needs of the residents of the district and would wish some to be built to lifetime homes standards to make them suitable for families who have a member with a physical disability. The requested mix is 3 x 2 bed units and 2 x 3 bed units, ideally all rented, but the policy asks for 75% rented and 25% shared ownership. It is recommended that the smaller homes be put forward if there are any in shared ownership.
3.30 The Architectural Liaison Officer has written to refer to verbal commitments made by ASDA in meetings on security measures and subject to this will be happy to support the application. (e.g on aligning with the principles of Secured By Design, provision of CCTV, glazing details and the securing of the car park when the store is closed)
3.31 The Environmental Health Officer has not objected but has recommended conditions on dust, noise mitigation measures, hours of working, asbestos removal, and contaminated land.
4.0 Ware Town Council Representations
4.1 Ware Town Council does not object to the development in principle but would wish to see the following conditions applied by East Herts Council.
• a limit of 13 low houses on the development and their construction started during or before the foodstore construction • that trading hours be 8am to 22 pm and Sunday trading hours • the extent of landscaping should be protected to provide year round screening • that the store should not be permitted to expand from 28,000 sq feet • that there should be a S106 agreement to enable the County Council to assess and carry out necessary traffic calming to Fanshawe Crescent, Watton Road and Park Road
4.2 With regards to the options for Buryfields Park the Town Council prefer the design to be open with a view across the park. The loss of 9 trees along Watton Road is regretted and they request a planning condition that they be replaced with something of similar size. Page 52 3/10/0386/FP
4.3 Stanstead Abbots Parish Council objects that the proposal by its size and design will be detrimental to the vitality and quality of life and viability of the surrounding rural communities. It will challenge the trade in Ware High Street and the neighbouring villages including Stanstead Abbots. Retail and service outlets will be lost that provide the personal touch that the new store cannot. Small traders should be encouraged; the risk is of a high street of vacant shops and a monoculture of charity and pound shops. They do not support multinational companies destroying the bedrock of communities and consider the proposal is contrary to Local Plan Policy STC6.
5.0 Other Representations
5.1 The application has been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification .
5.2 270 letters of representation have been received the majority of which are objecting to the application although a substantial minority (35%) are written in support. Of the 175 letters of objection, the main objections voiced are to the perceived neighbour and environmental impacts, retail and highways impacts. Some have responded to the Waitrose bid and Co-op to say these offer a better alternative to Asda.
5.3 95 letters of support have been received. Supporters of the scheme wish to see competition to the existing town food store of Tesco which is considered to be unattractive and in need of competition. A 1128 signature petition has been received; while closer inspection reveals some missing signatures, several signatures from one school and people living a significant distance it nonetheless indicates a significant level of support in the town, as do the individual letters received. Supporters have also written to say that the Waitrose will not meet the local need and bring benefits.
5.4 The Cintel Residents’ Committee active at pre application, and throughout the consultation, has made a number of points but key demands for them are that planning conditions are imposed to cover opening hours, construction hours, lighting and noise, lack of traffic calming measures including a raised crossing for the Toucan on Park Road. They object to the loss of trees along Watton Road as it is widened, the location of the bus stop, the loading and parking provisions for the Londis store. They object that the acoustic fence is not a “design flaw” (see Landscape Officer comment) but a concession gained after a long and hard fought battle by the residents, its repositioning is totally unacceptable but they would accept provision of climbing plants.
Page 53 3/10/0386/FP
5.5 The Co-op (Nathaniel Lichfield Partners) have objected that the Retail Planning Statement underestimates the impact of the store on Ware Town Centre. The turnover assumptions are incorrect for both the Asda store and the town centre Tesco. 20% of the store’s turnover is unaccounted for. Their own sensitivity testing suggests a far higher impact on the town centre (37%).This will threaten the town’s vitality and viability, contrary to Policy EC16(b) of PPS4 and Local Plan Policy STC6(b). The Asda store will jeopardise their own mixed use retail and residential scheme at Star Street with a Coop store estimated sales floorspace of 370sqm. Their own store is able to meet all the identified need (293sqm) to 2013 in the Retail and Town Centre Study 2008.
5.6 They consider the net: gross ratio of floor space to be exceptionally low at 39:100 against an industry standard range of between 50:100 and 75:100. They challenge the assumption that no trade will be diverted from 16 other smaller convenience store outlets in Ware. They say only 80% of trade diversion is accounted for and doubt that so much will be diverted from further afield. The proposal threatens to undermine the redevelopment of their Star Street site contrary to PPS4 Policy EC16.1(a).
5.7 Waitrose have written with lengthy submissions to challenge the application submissions and to identify the benefits of an alternative Crane Mead development. Asda’s sequential assessment discounts the Crane Mead site because it is in a designated employment area; but Waitrose point out in the East Herts Employment Land Review 2008 that the site was rated as “amber” requiring future intervention due to its low visibility and access points. Their scheme can provide the necessary intervention and new employment opportunities. Sainsbury’s site in Hertford they note was also an allocated employment site but with a “green” rating. Like Co-op, they challenge the turnover figures and say there is no explanation as to why the original figure (£10,334 per sqm) has been used aside from it being previously agreed. They believe the turnover of the Asda store will be more like £33M rather than the £26M. The methodology is confused and the figures are inconsistent. The impact question becomes academic if the store fails the sequential test.
5.8 In conclusion, they consider the application should be refused because their site at Swains Mill, Crane Mead is sequentially preferable and is available, suitable and viable. Furthermore they believe the Asda store would have a significant impact on Ware Town Centre. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy EC17.1a and EC17.b of PPS4. Their store by its relationship with the town centre will support the vitality and viability of the town centre.
Page 54 3/10/0386/FP
5.9 GlaxoSmithKline are interested to protect their investment and secure their long term future as an employer in the town. They object that the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and given that 39% of the floor area is for sales are concerned about later expansion. If the retail floor area increased later then there would be increased pressure on local roads. They are concerned that the car parking provision is below adopted standards. They are concerned about parking obstructing the free flow of traffic in Park Road. They would wish to be consulted on changes to Buryfields Park given visibility concerns
5.10 The owner of Mill Studio at Crane Mead says that Asda are incorrect to say the Swains Mill site is not available and that there is excessive car parking space at their site which can be used as part of a redevelopment scheme without detriment to the office space at Mill Studio. In a more recent letter he again confirms he is prepared to see his land come forward in a redevelopment of Crane Mead in the event that ASDA are refused consent.
5.11 Orchard House pre school which lies to the west of the site is concerned about noise and disruption and seeks reassurance that safety and security will not be affected at their site.
5.12 The existing nursery Angels at Play welcome the proposals and the proposed improvements to their building. Their flat roof is a maintainence liability. They support the changes to pedestrian and vehicular access and feel that their outdoor play space will be larger. The Asda scheme brings much needed regeneration and employment to the site
5.13 The scope of third party representation made is extensive. A summary of the objectors’ points made is set out below with supporters points from paragraph 5.33 onwards
5.14 Highways / Traffic Objections :
5.15 General
• Traffic is being drawn from a wide area • Asda say 95% of traffic is already on the network however 60% of the traffic is being drawn from a wider area • High Street congestion will worsen • Object to the congestion and pollution of 30,000 visitors a week • Weekend traffic will become like the weekly peak hours. • Please resurface the road as it is covered in potholes • Need traffic calming measures on local roads • Want a 20mph zone Page 55 3/10/0386/FP
• Costly traffic management measures should not fall on the local taxpayer • The store pick up is not convenient and people will therefore pick up from roads around • Any traffic lights will be unwelcome as these are obstructive
5.16 Parking
• There is insufficient parking. Need for 450 calculated and only 283 proposed • There is no parking for staff • Store will be under pressure to reduce the length of stay given the shortage of parking • Asda’s own figures show 415 vehicles per hour at peak - so not enough space if people are to visit the town centre as well • There will be parking congestion on surroundings roads • Fanshawe Crescent and Park Road need to be resident permit parking areas • Store is larger than the town centre Tesco but with fewer spaces • Inadequate parking for Nursery Staff – the original permission required 28 spaces for staff. • Nursery parents will use Park Road • Parking in front of 2 – 26 Park Road is needed for residents. Want residents parking restriction. • The restrictions on long term parking in Park Road is a loss for users of the town centre
5.17 Deliveries
• Object to 20% increase in HGV traffic • Delivery hours should be conditioned to store hours but allowing one hour before opening. • Delivery hours should be 8am to 8pm • Lorry deliveries should be directed out along Wadesmill Road ( A road) rather than Watton Road (B road) • What is to stop lorries parking in surrounding streets ? • The Park Road entry appears too narrow
5.18 Sustainable Transport
• Pedestrian crossings needed on Watton Road • Pavements along Watton Road are too narrow and feel dangerous; traffic noise is so loud cant converse with people. Page 56 3/10/0386/FP
• Pavements are too narrow for people with pushchairs • Provide raised table crossings on Park Road near to store exit – prefer zebra crossing for convenience • No room for bus shelters • Buses should access Asda site • Bus stop location is inappropriately site on Watton Road • Increased risks to school children from Chauncey Secondary and St Catherine’s Primary • Only 24 cycle stands are on the plans but 58 cycle stands mentioned in the documents • Buryfields is not well lit • Object to cyclist use of path across Buryfields – used by elderly and children • Train station is 15 minute walk away not convenient
5.19 Watton Road
• Watton Road is already congested and can’t cope with the predicted 30% increase • Traffic often backs up all the way to A10 • 5000 cars a day – there will be continual jams • Watton Road is a dangerous road to access so this will get worse • Gridlock when cars are queuing right to go into Asda and right to turn into Cross Road • The T junction will be inadequate • The middle waiting lane is too short • Cars trying to exit right will not wait and will turn left and rat run through Fanshawe Crescent • T junction will need traffic lights • Need to address speed on Watton Road • Watton Road should be HGV free • Road needs resurfacing and pavements are narrow
5.20 Park Road
• Park Road already has GSK traffic and deliveries, schools traffic, swimming pool users • Serious morning congestion will worsen
Page 57 3/10/0386/FP
5.21 Fanshawe Crescent
• Prefer build outs to speed bumps for traffic calming • There will be increased rat running as a result of congestion • Should be access only from Watton Road
5.22 Retail Objections
5.23 Need
• No need for supermarket. • Other Asda stores within driving distance. • Many vacant shops in town – No 12 High Street has been standing empty since built • Tesco serves existing population very well. • 2008 Study by Chase and Partners said no need – identified a need for 800 sq ft up to 2021
5.24 Impact
• People will shop at Asda but not go to town . • 20% linkage is hugely optimistic. • Store is 500m away from town centre. • Live in Fanshawe Crescent and find the distance too great to walk • There is insufficient draw in the town centre • The store will offer ATM’s, comparison and other services removing the need for a town centre trip • Store will be a competitor to the town centre rather than complement it • The store needs to be closer to the town otherwise encourages unnecessary car journeys • Asda will take 40% trade from Tesco and town centre. • Focus will move away from town centre. • Store includes a butcher, pharmacy, baker, clothing outlet all in direct competition with town centre businesses. • List given of at least 21 businesses in town centre in direct competition • Asda will soak up lunchtime trade from GSK and divert this from the High Street. • Ware town centre already in terminal decline • If High Street dies then heart of the community goes • Wouldn’t be surprised if Tesco abandoned Ware altogether
Page 58 3/10/0386/FP
• Ware will end up a Ghost town like Hoddesdon, Cheshunt or Royston for welcoming big stores. • Adverse impact on delicatessens and cafes in town • Added town roads congestion will discourage trips to the town centre
5.25 Scale
• Store has a low retail floorspace ratio 38.5% - if it moves to the average of other stores 47.7% then net floorspace increases back to 34,600 sq ft. • The back of house area of 6,000 sq ft for offices is probably for later use as sales floor area; later enlargement of the store has happened at Tesco Hertford (twice) • Asda have subsequently expanded their stores at Stevenage and Biggleswade • Asda sales are reduced by 23% (net) but the store is reduced by only 5% (gross) from last application. • If 48% of traffic is coming along Watton Road from A10 then the store is obviously not for the town of Ware and is clearly serving a wider need • Stores of this size are best placed out of town
5.26 Miscellaneous retail
• The local plan still asserts a need test even though PPS6 does not • Ware is defined as a minor town centre and provides for this role well (Chase) this proposal draws trade in from wider area • The previous phone poll is flawed and overestimated the leakage of trade from Ware as it took in areas outside Ware • Why cant people just shop online? • Detriment and loss of the local Londis store. The store loses its loading bay • 24 hour opening is unacceptable but Asda will be back in future for this and future expansion, no guarantees offered on this by Tom McGarry spokesman for Asda • Store to be 9am – 9pm Mon – Sat. • Object to the size of the store but not the principle. • Would support an alternative smaller store in a central location • Store should be no larger than existing Tesco. • Would support if Asda committed money to develop the town. • More traffic in high street will damage town centre.
Page 59 3/10/0386/FP
• If a new store is needed it would be better located at the other end of town near to the shops, the university and the station • Asda supporters are elderly who live on north side and struggle to get to Tesco’s. They will not make linked journeys to town centre.
5.27 Neighbour Amenity
• Must remember the proposed store is in the middle of a residential area • Acoustic fencing is insufficient to contain noise, requires extension along the rear of pub wall. • Semi mature planting should be used to provide instant screen. • A mound to the landscaping needed at rear of 2 – 4 Fanshawe Crescent. • Noise from vents to CHP • No more than 13 houses • Conditions must protect landscaping • Service Yard should be restricted to 7:30am – 20:30 • Servicing no earlier than 7am • 8m lighting columns are too high • Lights to service yard need to be switched off at night • Construction will be hugely disruptive to Watton Road area • Conditions on construction hours needed • No 62 Watton Road. Object to impact of car park, fencing, lighting, privacy (1.2m fence inadequate) • Compactor within yard will cause noise pollution • Hazard beeps need to be turned off at night • Noise from upper deck entry / exit.
5.28 Use
• Proposal does not fulfil the ideal of sustainable development • Asda don’t do small • Site should be used for affordable housing • Need for leisure facilities e.g. indoor tennis courts, gym • Site best used for mixed use with housing employment, gym • Site history began with the John Logie Baird Cinema TV Company in 1940’s. Best to continue with high technology jobs • Car park fumes will impact on the existing nursery. Nursery garden lost. • Site is dilapidated and underused as a result of a succession of property developers seeking to obtain planning permission • Propose a smaller store and missed businesses Page 60 3/10/0386/FP
5.29 Design
• Fencing to Watton Road is very poor and inadequate landscaping • Fence 4m above the road level – blights the view of the site • Will stick out like a sore thumb • Building of a scale still out of character with area • Possible damage to listed buildings in area.
5.30 Employment
• Asda will bring unskilled low paid jobs unlike the potential of other businesses
5.31 Information
• Many mistakes, references to previous applications. • Retail refers to Heanor and Eastwood in place of Ware and Hertford • Air pollution within car park not accounted for • Construction will be hugely disruptive to Watton Road Area
5.32 Crime / anti-social behaviour
• Asda must commit to manage any antisocial behaviour problems • Car park needs to be secured at night
5.33 A summary of the points made by supporters of the Asda application are set out below
5.34 Ware – need/benefits
• Ware is losing out. Hertford will have 3 supermarkets even Buntingford has two. Ware will only have one. • Ware needs a superstore and Asda will enhance the overall experience. The town has lost so many stores. • The benefits will outweigh the disadvantages. • Ware is a growing town with lots of new flats. • Asda will keep these people in the town rather than driving elsewhere. • There used to be a free bus service to Brookfield Farm but that has ended now. • The nearest Asda is 9 miles away but within 9 miles there are 12 Tesco’s and 8 Sainsbury’s. Page 61 3/10/0386/FP
• Asda will enable people to shop in their own town, this will help to keep small shops open. • Asda will bring people back into the town. • I would start to shop in Ware again. • Asda will give a boost to Baldock Street.
5.35 Choice/competition
• Tesco needs competition as it is poorly managed currently • Tesco has got lazy, service lines run out. Unhelpful attitudes and poor service. • Tesco is a monopoly. • Tesco store is too small. • The Asda will extend choice. • Provides a clothes range and fills a void in the town • Presently have to travel to Harlow for an Asda • Waitrose is more expensive that Asda • Asda is very popular and excellent value for money
5.36 Employment
• Asda will bring more people back into Ware and be a boost for businesses • The 250 new jobs an Asda will bring are a benefit as Ware has fallen upon hard times • Asda will bring a range of clothing which fills a void in the town as good clothing stores are few and far between • Ware needs the 250 jobs. Ware has lost jobs from Glaxo and Regional College. • I would like to work there • In a recession people need value
5.37 Design/heritage
• Support the redesign and smaller store. • The store has taken account of the town’s historical background • Pleased that the kiln and malting are being retained • Can provide new public toilets when these are closing down • Site is neglected and needs regeneration. What will happen to it if Asda doesn’t get permission?
Page 62 3/10/0386/FP
5.38 Transport benefits
• We travel by bus to go to Asda in Harlow. • Asda will be good for non drivers, the elderly. • Reduces need to travel, currently forced to go to Harlow and Stevenage for Asda. • Suggest traffic is diverted via A10 to avoid High Street. • Asda will slow traffic down and make Watton Road easier to cross. • Pleased Asda will provide a bus service.
5.39 Waitrose alternative
• Waitrose are already in Hertford so why come to Ware. • Waitrose are more expensive • Waitrose would only serve the south side of town
5.40 Public opinion
• Don’t let the Nimby brigade win. The small noisy minority opposed to it. • The vast majority of people I have spoken to are in favour of it • Generally people are in support. • Haven’t spoken to anyone against it • 29 residents of Hartfield Court are in support of the application
6.0 Policy
6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies for the consideration of this application include the following:-
SD1 Making Development More Sustainable HSG1 Assessment of Unallocated Housing Sites HSG3 Affordable Housing HSG4 Affordable Housing Criteria HSG6 Lifetime Homes TR1 Traffic Reduction in New Developments TR2 Access to New Developments TR3 Transport Assessments TR4 Travel Plans TR5 Dual use of private car parks TR7 Car Parking – Standards TR12 Cycle Routes – New Developments TR13 Cycling Facilties Provision (non residential) TR14 Cycling – Facilities Provision (Residential) Page 63 3/10/0386/FP
EDE2 Loss of employment sites STC1 Development in town centres and edge of centre STC6 Out of centre and out of town retailing ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping ENV3 Planning Out Crime – New Development ENV16 Protected Species ENV20 Groundwater Protection ENV21 Surface Water Drainage BH3 Archaeological Conditions and Agreements BH6 New developments in Conservation Areas LRC3 Recreational requirements in new residential development LRC11 Retention of communal facilities IMP1 Planning Conditions and Obligations
6.2 In addition to the above it is considered that national guidance in the following documents is relevant to the determination of the application:-
Planning Policy Guidance 1, Delivering Sustainable Development , Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing , Planning Policy Statement 4, Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth in particular policies EC10, EC14, EC15, EC16 and EC17, PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment PPG13 Transport
7.0 Considerations
Principle of development
7.1 Although now mostly unused, the application site is a significant employment site within Ware by its historic use, buildings and size. As a substantial brownfield site with few buildings that are worthy of retention its redevelopment accords with national and local planning policies for recycling and making the best use of urban land. Although there has been local opposition to previous housing and retail applications, as well as the current scheme, the Council knows from its survey 3 years ago that there is general support locally for the principle of a well designed, environmentally friendly, comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the site.
7.2 Having regard to this and the established local and national planning policies of PPS1, PPS3 and PPS4 a retail led mixed use scheme, including housing and a retained nursery use, is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle subject to the key tests of retail, highways and
Page 64 3/10/0386/FP
parking, neighbour impacts, design and conservation including its impact on the adjacent Conservation Area, the setting of listed buildings and the significant heritage assets at the site.
7.3 The main planning issues to consider in the determination of this application are therefore whether:
• the site makes sufficient provision for employment uses as part of a mixed use redevelopment (Policy EDE2) • there is justification for an “out of centre” retail store not in accordance with the development plan having regard to the tests of PPS4. • there is a sequentially preferable site to the proposed store contrary to the tests of PPS4 • the retail impact of the store will be detrimental to the vitality and viability of the existing Ware town centre (PPS4 and Policies STC1 and STC6) • the traffic impacts of the development are acceptable and the existing highway network is able to accommodate the additional traffic and servicing demands generated (TR1) • the development makes adequate provisions for car parking, transport and access to the site and in particular if sufficient provision is made to encourage non private car modes of transport such as walking, cycling and passenger transport (TR7 and PPG13) • the development will cause undue detriment to the amenities of nearby residents (Policy ENV1) • the development preserves and enhances the appearance and character of the adjacent Ware Conservation Area (Policy BH6 and PPS5) • the proposal preserves and enhances the setting of the listed Rose and Crown Public House and gives due regard to significant heritage assets within and around the site (PPS5) • the development is otherwise of a high standard of design quality reflecting the local pattern of development and in its provisions for connection with its surroundings and landscaping (Policy ENV1 and ENV2 and PPS1) • whether the housing proposal is appropriately designed, of satisfactory quality and makes due provision for affordable housing (Policy ENV1, HSG3 and HSG4 and PPS3) • whether the development makes necessary S106 provisions to mitigate the impacts of the development (Policy IMP1)
Page 65 3/10/0386/FP
Employment Impact
7.4 Local Plan policy EDE2 requires and sets out tests for existing employment sites that are not designated employment areas to ensure that they are as far as possible retained in continuing employment use.
7.5 The proposed development of the site will include employment in the retained nursery use at the site and provide an estimated 250 jobs (full time equivalent). National planning guidance in PPS4 (para 4) recognises the employment generated by town centre uses such as retail development can be considered. Proposals will still need to be in accordance with the detailed tests set out in policy.
7.6 The site would be acceptable for redevelopment for other high end employment uses and this has been encouraged at previous stages by the council, although that is not the proposal now presented for the Council to determine. In negotiations on previous applications at the site it was accepted that the site had limited suitability for B2 (industrial) or B8 (warehouse) development
7.7 Bearing in mind the current weak market for commercial development and the costs of cleaning up the site and repairing the maltings and kiln building, it would be likely to be a significantly long time before any alternative business led regeneration of the site were feasible that delivered the same benefits of comprehensive regeneration. The applicant has estimated that there is 5,500 sqm of vacant business space at the site.
7.8 The previous retail led scheme included a care home and an estimated larger number of jobs (500) at the site but was not recommended for refusal on employment grounds. Notwithstanding the reduced employment in this current scheme, this is mainly a consequence of the reduced size of the store and the introduction of a housing element to replace the care home (which has been promoted by officers) so there is still a significant and acceptable employment element. Overall, having regard to the above matters I do not consider there to be an objection on employment grounds to the scheme.
Retail Considerations
7.9 The site is agreed by all parties to be outside Ware town centre. Asda consider their store to be “edge of centre” whereas I agree with Chase and Partner’s consistent and firmly held view that the site is “out of centre” because it is more than 300m from an assumed Primary Shopping Area.
Page 66 3/10/0386/FP
7.10 It should be emphasised that there is no defined Primary Shopping Area (PSA) in the East Herts Local Plan for Ware or any of the district’s town centres. The plan at Appendix B identifies the Asda site in relation to the designated secondary and primary shopping frontages in the adopted Local Plan.
7.11 Policy EC3 of National Guidance in PPS4 advises that Primary Shopping Areas (PSA) be identified in Local Development Frameworks and that they will broadly comprise “the primary shopping frontages and those secondary frontages which are contiguous and closely related to the primary shopping frontage” (Annex B). As neither the Local Plan nor the 2008 Retail and Town Centre Study recommended a PSA then this has to be a matter of judgement.
7.12 The two main retail tests of national planning guidance in PPS4 for sites outside the town centre not in accordance with the development plan are as relate to sequential assessment and retail impact as set out in Policy EC17.1. Firstly the applicant needs to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach (policy EC15) and secondly that the development will not result in “significant adverse impacts” having regard to policies EC10.2 and EC16.1. The PPS4 impacts cover a range of retail impact considerations including the impact on investment in towns, town centre vitality and viability, other locally important centres, as well as non retail issues including climate change, transport, design, regeneration, and employment.
7.13 Legal advice the council has obtained is that in reaching a reasonable and defensible planning decision the local planning authority must give due weight to the tests of the sequential and impact tests. In particular the expectation of Policy EC17.1 that a development complies with the sequential test or should otherwise be refused. Only exceptionally, and where the Council can give clear reasons for doing so, could a development be agreed contrary to the policy.
7.14 Sequential Assessment : In its original submission, Asda identified, with the cooperation of your officers, nine alternative sites in and around Ware Town Centre for appraisal in order to identify whether they could be determined to be sequentially preferable sites to the Cintel site. The Sequential Assessment was originally accepted by Chase and Partners to demonstrate that there were not any sequentially preferable sites. Asda discounted the Swains Mill / Crane Mead site as being unsuitable due to its designation for employment use in the local plan and a restrictive covenant for rail maintainence, as well as to its unavailability due to 3 separate land ownerships. The Co-op site (part of a larger identified site) was discounted as too small and therefore unsuitable and unviable. Page 67 3/10/0386/FP
7.15 The assessment was first challenged by the Coop who objected and announced that they intended to develop a mixed use scheme of residential and retail floorspace (approx 4000 sq ft net sales) at Star Street on the edge of the town centre, and then secondly in June this year when Waitrose publicly entered the discussion with their outline proposal for an alternative smaller food only store (15,000 sq ft) at Crane Mead. Waitrose stated that the 3 landowners had now come together in principle with a property developer to secure an agreement for the site’s redevelopment. Chase and Partners asked for the sequential analysis to be reviewed, their view now is that while the Co-op site is not suitable to provide a food store of choice , the Crane Mead site is available, suitable and viable for development which is therefore an objection to the grant of permission at Cintel.
7.16 PPS4 practice guidance notes that the key sequential tests are of
o availability – whether sites are available or are likely to become available for development within a reasonable time period;
o suitability – whether sites are suited to accommodate the need or demand that the proposal is intended to meet;
o viability – whether there is a reasonable prospect that development will occur on the site at a particular point in time.
7.17 Neither the proposed Asda store or Waitrose site is particularly favourably located for the town centre. When measuring comparable walking distances for linked pedestrian journeys between the stores and town centre, the Waitrose store is about 264m to the nearest secondary frontage and Asda is 297m; Waitrose is about 287m from the nearest primary shopping frontage whereas the nearest primary shopping frontage to Asda will be about 520m (see site comparison plan at Appendix A). The comparison of distances between the stores shows that in terms of a centre judged to be that of retail concentration, the Primary Shopping Area, then the Waitrose store would be some 200m closer to the town centre than the Asda.
7.18 Chase and Partners do not agree with Asda’s view that Baldock Street can be considered to be within the Primary Shopping Area as this street is characterised by offices, A2 uses and restaurant/takeaways and it cannot be viewed as an area of retail concentration. Chase do not agree with the view of Asda that the linkage to the store and increased pedestrian activity and vitality of Baldock Street would make it part of the PSA in the future. This they argue pre-empts the planning authority’s decision on how it intends to define a PSA for Ware in its Local Development Framework.
Page 68 3/10/0386/FP
7.19 In Asda’s favour, I would acknowledge that the proposed store may be visible at a distance from the top of Baldock Street whereas the Waitrose store would not be visible from any town centre shopping frontage. Neither store would be visible from the Primary Shopping Area. Furthermore, the Waitrose store is separated from the town centre by an area of residential development whereas the routes from Asda along Park Road, Watton Road and Baldock Street are of a mixed residential and commercial character. This linkage in part reflects the linear form of the town’s commercial area. In Waitrose’s consideration their store is well placed to provide attractive river links to the town and is better placed for public transport. Both of the sites offer reasonably level walks into the town and neither requires the crossing of major road barriers. Because of the fact that the Waitrose store is physically much closer to the PSA and can be considered “edge of centre” then on balance I agree with Chase and partners view that their Crane Mead site should be considered sequentially preferable to the Cintel site with a greater likelihood of generating linked trips.
7.20 Suitability - Although the Waitrose store is smaller than the proposed Asda store, Chase and Partners disagree with Asda’s view that it cannot provide for the identified need and consumer choice. They accept that the Waitrose store is smaller and will not provide as much “claw back” of trade to the town as Asda. It is also the case that the Waitrose will not introduce an additional operator in the Hertford/Ware area although there will be more competition and choice in the local area. Some of the Waitrose custom will be taken from customers normally loyal to the Hertford town centre store. However none of these factors are considered sufficient to overcome the disadvantage of the Asda site by its relative lack of proximity. Although there is support for Asda in the town there is also opposition and uncertainty about its impact, the case has not been proven that the scale of the Asda store approximates more appropriately to the needs of the town than say the Waitrose site. If it were the case, then the Cintel site could be argued to be the more suitable.
7.21 The Waitrose site was assessed as being unsuitable by Asda as it is allocated for employment use in the local plan. Although this is a factor in PPS4, Waitrose have pointed out the “amber” assessment of Crane Mead in the 2008 Employment Land Study, this means that the employment use is only viable with intervention. Chase and Partners feel that this study discounts the employment objection and means the site is suitable and I agree. The pre application development options presented for the Waitrose site have been shown to provide an improved employment offer at the site and given the fact that employment with retailing is recognised by PPS4 I do not think there is likely to be an employment objection to a food store as part of a mixed use redevelopment of Swains Mill site. By comparison, the Secretary of State had no employment objection to the Sainsbury’sPage 69 3/10/0386/FP
application in Hertford on a designated employment site even though that site had a more favourable “green” rating in the 2008 Employment Land Study.
7.22 Asda claims that their site will deliver conservation benefits greater than at Swains Mill is accepted, but this is not relevant to the sequential assessment or a reason to discount the Swains Mill site as unsuitable.
7.23 Availability and viability - Although there has been some uncertainty about deliverability of the Swains Mill site and no planning application has been made, Waitrose indicate that they are working towards a detailed submission and this requires time to prepare properly. They have reaffirmed that all 3 landowners are working together to deliver an alternative. Subject to submission of an application, the related work on other planning and design issues then, as Chase and Partners say, due to its physical proximity there would be a sequentially preferable alternative site and the Council would be expected to refuse planning permission. If Waitrose subsequently failed to come forward with a suitable detailed scheme then there the presumption would move back in favour of the Asda scheme but this seems unlikely at the present time.
7.24 Impact Assessment. If the assessment on the sequential test is conclusive then other assessments about impact become irrelevant.
7.25 Nonetheless Chase and Partners have questioned the figures provided in the Planning and Retail Statement about estimated turnover at the store which have been strongly challenged by the Co-op and Waitrose. The objections made are that the figures are an underestimate and significantly underestimate the impact of the store on the town. The further work raises “more questions than answers”. The main doubt is to the level of turnover at the store with a significant discrepancy and lack of understanding for the derivation of the company average turnover figures. Chase believe that the store, being smaller than average, would be likely to achieve a higher than average turnover. The Co-op’s agents, NLP, object that a large amount of turnover (20%) is unaccounted for and the combined effect with under- estimation of turnover is that the impact of the store on the town centre could be as high as 37%.
7.26 Asda have responded and stand by their original turnover estimates but also comment that even if the store does trade beyond estimates, due to the level of linkage and spin off trade to the town centre, then the impact will be to the benefit of the town centre. This depends of course on whether the assumed linkage of 20% of shoppers visiting the town will occur. The figure is justified by Asda as it is below the range (22-53%) of linkage discussed Page 70 for the Hertford Tesco Store (although that store is physically better linked 3/10/0386/FP
to a town centre with a stronger pull factor) Only 30% of Ware Tesco shoppers by comparison visit the town centre, so for Asda, 20% linked trips from a store comprising both convenience and comparison goods over 500m from the primary shopping area may be an overestimate.
7.27 Overall , Chase have summarised their view that the proposal is unlikely to materially affect the vitality and viability of Ware town centre as a whole and the test in these policies – in so far as they relate to retail impact. However they do believe that the benefits to the town centre are overstated.. The ability of a new Asda store to retain custom and trade within the town and provide a modest associated level of linked trips (20%) is judged to more than compensate for the draw of trade away from the town centre. Chase have accepted that there could therefore be an additional spin off trade to the town centre (estimated by Asda at least £336,000). If turnover at the store goes higher then this could figure would increase.
7.28 In view of this there would not by itself be a retail impact reason to refuse the application although the lack of credible figures is a supporting reason to the overall retail objection.
7.29 The size of the store is larger than the existing town centre Tesco store but overall the scale, following the reduction from the previous application is considered to be more appropriate to the minor service role of the town.
7.30 The Co-op has objected that it intends to develop a small convenience food store site in Star Street at its former dairy site and this would be jeopardised. This would provide more of a “top up” shopping function rather than a comparable bulk food shopping offer as at Tesco or Asda. As such, even if the investment is threatened by the possibility of an Asda development it’s future importance to the vitality of the town centre is doubted by Chase who do not think this would constitute grounds for refusal.
7.31 The retail objection of significance is therefore to the fact that there is a sequentially preferable site and this is sufficient to refuse the application notwithstanding any other benefits of the proposal.
Design and Landscaping Issues
7.32 The design of the scheme represents one of the most significant areas of change and development since the last planning application in 2008. An overall approach and design has been broadly agreed with your planning and conservation officers, and including input from English Heritage.
Page 71 3/10/0386/FP
7.33 The changes have resulted in a tighter built form to Park Road; increased landscaping at the public boundaries of the site as well as the private internal site boundaries with neighbours. The retention and incorporation of both the hitch brick kiln and the maltings for the new store. The references to maltings buildings in the design and the use of materials suggest a more traditional approach although the main design objection previously was to the form and layout of the rather uninspired “box-like” form of the proposal rather than any architectural style issue. Although the style of architecture was not advocated by officers, the applicants have introduced a language of buildings that now have more reference to local context and distinctiveness.
7.34 The Conservation Officer and English Heritage have given their positive endorsement to the approach and the public exhibitions and correspondence indicate a wide agreement that the design of the scheme is a positive material consideration. Although the mix of uses was encouraged to include other active uses along the main road frontages the introducing of the café element to Park Road, the retention of openings and the strengthened landscaping as well as the active use of the Kiln building will result in a more active street frontage and an acceptable design. The opening up of the area in front of the Kiln will make this a much more positive feature in the street and in combination with the other changes, such as the nursery extensions I consider there will be a significant enhancement of this part of the Conservation Area.
7.35 The retention of the Kiln and Maltings secures a significant heritage asset in both this Council’s view and that of English Heritage and the County Archaeologist. Although it was not listed, the building has in your officer’s view an equivalent significance and new national guidance in PPS5 strengthens the weight to be given to non designated heritage assets where a case can be made. The repair and enhancement of this building represents a valuable benefit of the overall scheme. It is not immediately clear if an alternative development scheme for the Cintel site would be able to secure the repair of this building and certainly not within a reasonable time frame.
7.36 To the north of the site is the only listed building adjacent to or within the site, the Rose and Crown Public House also constructed of the local hitch brick. The proposal will provide significant landscaped areas to Watton Road nearby and I consider the proposed development will consequently enhance the setting of this building.
Page 72 3/10/0386/FP
7.37 As part of the design work, in accordance with the requirements of Policy ENV1, a lot of attention has been given in negotiations to how the store will connect with its surroundings and the town centre. A number of improvements to crossing points on Watton Road, Park Road Fanshawe Crescent and walking and cycling routes will be included. The corner of Buryfields Park is to be opened up to view from Park Road to make the route more inviting as well as addressing a concern raised by Glaxo about poor visibility. The development will allow people to cross from Watton Road to Park Road via the store entrance during opening hours (a provision that can be secured by condition for additional hours on Sunday).
7.38 Overall the design and conservation aspects of the proposal are not only in my view acceptable in design terms but give a very positive weight to the application to which I shall return in my overall summary of the planning application.
Highways and parking
7.39 The application has been subject of lengthy detailed work, between the County Highways Officers and applicant, who have not been able to agree all figures but sufficient agreement has been reached on the basis of modelling for them to conclude that the congestion, while increased as a result of the proposals, is acceptable and can be mitigated by the S106 contributions towards identified sustainable transport.
7.40 The County Council add however that the congestion could be deemed unacceptable unless outweighed by other planning benefits such as the retail need for the store. In making this point they are having regards to the Inspectors decision on the Sainsbury application, where an objection to traffic congestion was accepted by the Inspector but found to be outweighed by the wider planning benefits.
7.41 In the case of the Asda proposal I would take the view that it can potentially provide significant planning benefits by regeneration of a major brownfield site, by increased local retail choice and competition and by the repair and reuse of a significant historic asset (the kiln and maltings building). Without prejudice to the sequential assessment, I do think there are planning benefits to the proposal which would override the highways concern and in view of the highways comments I do not recommend refusal on highways grounds.
7.42 The overall level of parking provision has been accepted by your officers and highways officers. The 283 spaces provides a comparable level of parking in ratio to the net sales area as has been agreed at other store proposals (Tesco extension/Sainsbury’s in Hertford) for edge of centrePage sites73 3/10/0386/FP
which have also allowed for town centre shoppers parking. A S106 provision to manage the parking to ensure short term parking charges but reasonable longer stay charges will also make the car park an option for shoppers using the town centre.
7.43 The guideline parking provision under the SPD, a maximum, is not considered so reliable in this case as this is based on gross floor area figures, rather than net, and the gross floor area of the Asda store is disproportionately high due to the retention of the kiln and maltings building.
7.44 A S106 obligation will manage the car parking so that it is comparable to other town centre car parking regimes, in accordance with advice in PPS4, with a small charge for short stay, refundable on a minimum spend at the store and higher charges for longer stays.
7.45 Although the green travel plan will be a means to discourage staff use of the private car, and in part addresses concerns about parking in neighbouring streets, there is a S106 provision to fund the implementation of a residents parking scheme as also recommended by highways.
7.46 Overall therefore I do not consider there is a planning objection to the application on highways or parking grounds.
Neighbour Amenity
7.47 The last retail led planning application (3/08/1531/FP) was considered by officers to raise unacceptable neighbour amenity issues in particular with regard to the service yard location and the proximity of footpaths to adjoining private gardens. The proposals have been significantly amended in my view with regards to the relationships to surrounding dwellings. For a large food store operator there will inevitably be a level of disturbance. However the number of objections by neighbours has fallen and the residents group is not objecting subject to the control by planning condition. Environmental Health do not object to the development or the noise implications from the site.
7.48 The service yard area, a key objection of the last application, has been positioned more centrally and now further away from residents in Fanshawe Crescent. This was partly enabled by the revision of access arrangement with delivery vehicles entering from Park Road and exiting via Watton Road. The dwellings in Fanshawes Crescent will be separated by a 4m acoustic fence and a wide tree planted mound. The yard would be subject to a service yard management plan.
Page 74 3/10/0386/FP
7.49 On the eastern side of the site the dwellings at 26 Park Road and 63 Watton Road are immediately adjacent and the most likely to be affected by the proposed development and its car park. The footpaths proposed along the east side boundary in the first application have been omitted and the decked car parking will now be separated from the adjacent houses by intervening planted areas of over 5m width. The deck car park will have a boundary fence of sufficient height (1.6m to restrict overlooking) and in time planting will provide additional screening. The store will be open up until 10pm Monday to Saturday which will mean some level of evening disturbance although consideration must be given to the fact that the site is lawfully in employment use and favoured to remain so in policy terms. The current use of the site is not subject of any time restrictions.
7.50 The undercroft car parking should ensure that much of the car park activity does not raise any particular issues of noise to residents and the car park will be closed off when the store is closed. There will be some noise from the upper deck and the nearest properties affected are those on Watton Road and Park Road. In the previous scheme the car park was closer to them and the introduction of a pathway adjacent to their boundaries was likely to add to disturbance. Now as proposed with screen or acoustic fencing, new planting, a condition to control lighting and the restricted opening hours then these should all combine to keep the neighbour disturbance within reasonable limits.
7.51 There will be a general increase in activity and traffic that will be noticeable to residents, partly by comparison with the low level of activity as the employment uses have left the site. The traffic generated by the development will be a source of additional disturbance and loss of amenity to residents but there is already loss of amenity due to traffic in the locality and I do not think that the increased traffic levels would give rise to such a level of harm as to sustain an objection to the proposal.
7.52 Overall I see no grounds for objection on neighbour amenity grounds subject to the recommended conditions
Housing provision/affordable housing
7.53 The housing proposed to the western part of the site has been subject of considerable discussion with officers and with the local Cintel residents group. The 13 dwellings in this location substitute for an earlier proposal for a 70 bed care home in the previous withdrawn planning application (3/08/1531/FP).
Page 75 3/10/0386/FP
7.54 The site is large enough to support a provision of dwellings that would warrant affordable housing in my view, having regards to the thresholds of local plan policy However the applicants have been keen to honour a commitment to residents that only the current proposed form of development would proceed as part of the overall scheme and have offered a planning condition to that effect. The Town Council have also asked for this condition.
7.55 Although the applicant’s initial view was that the threshold did not apply in the approved Planning Performance Agreement they have signed up to the objectives of providing 5 of the 13 dwellings as an affordable provision. This enables local needs for affordable housing family to be met as part of the overall provision. The affordable provision could be secured as one of the obligations of a S106 agreement.
7.56 The layout of the housing is in 3 separate blocks in an L shape arrangement and at sufficient distance from neighbours to respect their amenity. There will be private garden space provision as part of the scheme and parking provision in front of the dwellings. It is reasonable to impose a condition for the completion of this part of the development as part of the overall scheme as this secures the regeneration of the housing area. A condition that only 13 dwellings has been offered by the applicant and sought by residents, however I do not think is sustainable and would not meet the tests of national planning guidance in Circular 11/95.
7.57 Overall the housing would provide a useful contribution to the private and affordable housing needs of the area although not perhaps not securing the most efficient use of the land. There are no objections to the housing aspects of the application subject to securing the benefits as part of a comprehensive redevelopment of this brownfield site.
Miscellaneous / Public Opinion
7.58 The application has been prepared over a long period of time with public consultation and negotiation at several stages. The applicant was asked to conduct a revised survey of the town’s residents and traders to clarify the public views on the store but did not do so, arguing that there is overwhelming support. The impression from all sources that I have gained is that there is a genuine divide of opinion, that while the town is generally supportive of more choice and competition it is more balanced regarding the merits of the proposed scheme even though the greater number of written representations made are opposed. The main public concerns are the environmental impact on the immediate site and surroundings area, the
Page 76 3/10/0386/FP
impact on the town centre. Some seek the alternative provision of a Waitrose food store and a small Co-op convenience store to the larger Asda.
7.59 The fact that one brand may be more popular is not a material planning consideration and the decision of the council cannot have regard to the reputation or image of the operators. The level of support for Asda may give some indication that the town has a retail need for a substantial competitor choice to the existing town centre Tesco. Ultimately it is not the balance of support that a scheme may have in the town, but a planning decision which needs to be taken on its planning merits, having regard to national and local planning policies and all other relevant material planning considerations.
Planning Obligations
7.60 Although the application is recommended for refusal, a draft set of S106 planning obligations and conditions have been agreed in principle with the applicant. They provide a comprehensive package of contributions of almost £950,000 that are related to the store development and would be considered necessary for it to be acceptable in planning terms having regard to the tests set out S122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy 2010 and the tests of Circular 05/2005. The most significant element of the provisions relate to the need to promote sustainable transport modes for the development in accordance with PPG13 and PPS4. There would be provision of £365,000 to fund additional bus routes to the site for 5 years as part of the scheme and provision of £232,000 to meet pedestrian and cyclist schemes within the vicinity of the site.
7.61 Being in an out of centre location and needs to promote the pedestrian links into the town. The S106 provisions would include grants to repair the building facades in Baldock Street and the development of an Architectural Lighting Strategy. The improved lighting and encouragement to owners to invest in their buildings in Baldock Street would enable the route to be more attractive to pedestrians throughout the year but the lighting will be partially of benefit in the winter afternoons and evenings. The possible boost to Baldock Street has been used as part of the wider retail planning case for Asda. Other planning conditions secure pavement widening along the route to Baldock Street and a cyclist/pedestrian route across Buryfields.
7.62 Contributions are also agreed in principle in relation to the housing element of the scheme to meet increased impacts on open space (including a new toddler play facility in Buryfields), schools, library and childcare services.
Page 77 3/10/0386/FP
7.63 A £30,000 contribution is made to the long term funding of a public realm scheme for Tudor Square, a key opportunity and public space within the Town Centre. This contribution will help to improve the attractiveness, vitality and viability of the town centre and counter concerns about the balance of impacts on the town centre.
7.64 The S106 would also fund of a residents parking scheme (subject to due consultation) to address concerns about parking in the surroundings streets; the management of the car park as a comparable short stay car park to be priced favourably for journeys into the town centre; the securing of affordable housing provision at the site and a Green travel Plan for employees and users of the store.
8.0 Conclusion
8.1 The proposed Asda development is a detailed and well developed set of proposals which would provide for the retail led regeneration of a major brownfield site in the town on the edge of the Conservation Area. It can provide a new out of centre food store for the town and increased competition for the existing Tesco store, something which is desired by many residents in the town and broadly has the support of the Town Council. Equally there have been a large and significant numbers of objectors to the scheme.
8.2 In terms of the latest national planning guidance for economic/retail development, in PPS4, the proposed store is judged by our independent retail adviser to fail the critical sequential test albeit it is a finely balanced judgement. This is due to the reasonable likelihood of an alternative and sequentially preferable site being available, namely the possible development of a Waitrose store at Swains Mill which it is considered is suitable available and viable. The Co-op Star Street site is discounted as it is not capable of providing a main foodstore and increasing choice.
8.3 This is a fundamental point as whatever other planning merits the application may have, in terms of PPS4 the sequential test is expected to be satisfied in its own right. The application should therefore only be approved if this question is first satisfied, namely whether the store is sequentially preferable to any other sites.
8.4 In my view, although contested by Asda, I think there is the reasonable prospect of a Waitrose development coming forward at the Crane Mead site given the stated interest and the level of agreement expressed by landowners. While there have been past uncertainties about the 3 landowners ability to deliver and Waitrose has not yet made a planning Page 78application, or had one tested on its own planning merits, there is 3/10/0386/FP
nonetheless enough likelihood of it coming forward to say it is a viable option.
8.5 Asda point out that the rival sites are more or less equivalent in distance to the town’s secondary shopping frontages, but I agree with our advisor that the Amwell End area is significantly busier than Baldock Street and whereas the former may be considered part of the core, or Primary Shopping Area, Baldock Street would not.
8.6 Asda seem to concede that the Waitrose site may have physical proximity but correctly say that sequential assessments are a balanced judgement as advised by PPS4 practice guidance based on the specific circumstances of the case. The Waitrose site they contend is not a suitable alternative due to the fact that the larger Asda store brings a new fascia into the area and would “clawback” more trade to the town than Waitrose can and this is a point accepted by Chase and Partners although not to the extent that the Crane Mead site should be discounted.
8.7 Asda, as many residents, believe that their store provides the kind of new offer that the town needs and introduces a choice into the area that is absent, whereas Waitrose are already represented by their town centre store in Hertford. Unfortunately there is no local plan policy to assert this given Ware’s more minor town centre role that is identified in the Local Plan. There is also limited evidence for them to base their assertion of this added need as the 2008 Town Centre Study only identified a need for modest new floorspace (albeit not allowing for claw back or expansion). That there is leakage of expenditure out of Ware is acknowledged and also the local support indicates a need, and certainly a desire for competition and choice but Chase and Partners advise that these could be provided by a Waitrose store. The overall level of support for the larger Asda provision, rather than a choice per se , is not proven. I therefore think it is more finely balanced on the suitability issue and Chase point out a judgement may be made locally that the larger store and a new fascia is a wider benefit but it is not their judgement. In view of the advice received the application should in my view be refused due to the failure to satisfy the sequential test.
8.8 As the sequential test fails then the question of impact becomes less critical. However impact is also a significant test of PPS4. While it is not anticipated by Chase that there will be “significant adverse impacts” or material harm to the vitality and viability of the town centre, there are many objections from third parties that the town centre will be damaged. Chase have been critical of the methodology and figures produced and professional objections from representatives of the Coop and Waitrose have both challenged the turnover figures in particular and the overall level of impact. The objection is that to date that the Retail Assessment has not demonstratedPage that 79 the 3/10/0386/FP
impact will be acceptable and this lack of evidence forms a further supporting reason for refusal of the application.
8.9 The independent expert advice received is that the retail impact of a Waitrose foodstore at Swains Mill on the town centre is not anticipated to be any more beneficial than the proposed Asda store at Cintel. The Asda proposal in terms of its retail impact on the town centre or its overall scale may not be harmful or inappropriate but the evidence is not there to show it complies with the tests of PPS4. With regard to the sequential test the proposed development is deemed to be contrary to national planning policy.
8.10 It is not possible given the stance of PPS4 to assert that other material planning considerations can be weighed in the balance to override a sequential objection.
8.11 From the highways submissions, assessments and modelling enough progress has been made to be satisfied officers that the proposal will not raise safety concerns or introduce highway hazards. The Asda scheme will generate significant traffic congestion in the area although the traffic models anticipate this even without a foodstore, this congestion is proposed to be mitigated by the measures and funding of the S106 Sustainable Transport Contributions and on this basis the County Highways engineers have now withdrawn their objection to the proposal although they accept there will be increased congestion. They do however advise that in their view the highways objection stands unless there is a retail need or planning benefits to override it. In my view, notwithstanding the retail objection on sequential grounds, because of the wider planning benefits, the wider PPS4 impacts, that are identified for the town by the development then I do not recommend refusal of the application on highways grounds.
8.12 A S106 package of obligations has been negotiated with planning conditions in the event of planning permission being granted. These would provide for sustainable transport contributions; secure the enhanced pedestrian and cyclist links between the store and the town centre; including elements to support recovery in Baldock Street, a more peripheral area of the town centre that suffers from less activity, investment and higher levels of vacancy.
8.13 In terms of heritage assets; the Cintel site contains a building of significant heritage interest, the hitch brick Kiln and Maltings which will be repaired and brought into use as part of the development and this is a benefit and consideration I would give significant weight. The refurbishment will be to the benefit of the wider surroundings as the frontage views of the building will be opened up to street view along Park Road. The re-establishment of a Page 80more attractive frontage to Park Road and attractive links into Buryfields will 3/10/0386/FP
be to the enhancement of the pedestrian links and to the Conservation Area.
8.14 The development has been redesigned to modify and in my view address the previous objections to neighbour impacts and raises no grounds for objection on this point. Significant landscaping around the site will be to the benefit of both public and private viewpoints of the site and Asda have committed to its long term maintainence.
8.15 All the identified benefits of heritage, site regeneration, new employment, provision of retail competition and a potential boost to the vitality of Baldock Street by associated S106 obligations may outweigh the disbenefits of increased traffic congestion, but they are not relevant to the primary sequential test of PPS4.
8.16 I therefore recommend that planning permission be refused for the proposed store for reasons as set out at the head of the report. Given the length of time taken to get to the stage of a finalised and largely justified scheme for Asda then some may feel frustration that it can be prevented due to a late rival bid even if the rival is on a sequentially preferable site. While this may be understandable, it is not a planning reason to override the sequential assessment and does not mean the alternative bid is unsuitable.
8.17 The sequential decision needs to be taken with regards to the Practice Guidance and does not distinguish between the merits of operators but does between the merits of sites. While the proposal may be acceptable in relation to a range of planning issues, securing positive benefits, my judgement informed by our expert advice, is that there are objections on sequential test grounds and the evidence in relation to the retail impact of the proposal as set out above that warrant the recommendation of refusal.
Page 81 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 90
3
0
W W W 7 15 5 1 7 6
5 9 8
6
7 10 4 32 33
34
9 2 W W W W W W W W W A A A A A A ADADAD CLCOCLSOLEOSESE D D D LOLOSLEOSESE DEDEDE
CCC E E E SESESE 4
CCLOLCOLO S S S 4 E E E
3
1 S S S 0 SMSMSM
8 M M M EYEYEY ELELEYLYY MI MI MI RKRKRLKELELE L L L BEBEBKEEKEKEYYY I I I ERERERLELELE IL IL IL BBB EEE L L L D D D EREKREKRK L L L BBB L L L D D D L L L D D D A A A R R R
A A A R R R
A A A
O O O 2 RORORO
O O O O O O 1 R O R O R O OAOAOA
R R R A A A
R R R 4 ADADAD
T T T
4 D D D
T T T 3
3 D D D 2 St Mary's
F F F
T T T F F F 9
F F F 1 O O O
O O O 5
R O R O R O
R R R Vicarage
RC RC RC
C C C 6
2 C C C 2 8 3 8 7 9 7 7
5 2 6 1 7 7 7 7
44 9
1 1 1 59 4 7 5 7 7 47 5
6 56
1 6
B B B
0 B B B
9
7 BEBEBE
6 E E E 5
D D D
ERERER 4
D D D R R R 5 K K K 8 AD DA AD R R R K K K A A A KEKEKE A A A 7 O O O E E E
O O O ELELEL
0 R O R O R O L L L 5
E E E R R R 1 8 L L L 6 E E E
R R R 6
S S S Y Y Y
E E E
50 S S S Y Y Y
S S S 5 Y Y Y N N N
N N N 6
7
N N N 6 O O O
7
O O O 2
NO ON NO 6
3 N N N 4 A N A N A N 6
A A A
A A A C C C 1 C C C 6
C C C
48 C C C
C C C
C C C L L
85 L
L L L
O O O
L L L
5
O O O 5
2
O O O
S S S
1
S S S
E E E
S S S
E E E
E E E
7 9
93
87
4 2
79
1
3 2
71 WWW
WWWAAA
6 3 AATATT 8 AATATTTTT 0 TTTTTOTONONN OONON NR R R 51
R R OROO 47 37
RROROAOAA
a AAA 7 DDD
9 AADADD 2
2 1 8
5
2 3
4 5 4 4 4
3 6
EEE EEE NENENE NNN OONONN OOO DDD T T T DDD
14 OOO T T T AADDAD SST ST T AAA SSS OOAOAA DSDSDS OOO DDD RROROO ADADAD RRR LALALA RRR 3 LALALA 8 GLGLGL GGG GGG
2
5 5 1 6
9
PH 34
2
0
9 1 0 2
5
6 1
7
9
8
6 1 6 4 Tanks a
27
24 Fire
9 1
9 1 8
2 3 Station
9
NNTNTT 1
EEE 7 CCECENENTNTT EESESCSCECEE C C RCRERESESS EE EC C RCRR AAWAWWEE E SSHSHAHAWAWW El 41 AANANSNSHSHH
FFAFANANN
FFAFAA Sub 2 2
6 Sta
1 4
7 6 9
8 2 8
2 Watton House Cintel House 2 Hall
D D D
A D A D A D
AO D AO D AO D
OAR OAR ORA
RO RO RO
E E E
R R R
EN EN NE
NEO NEO OEN
T T T
ON ON NO
S S S
T T T
O O O
SD SD DS
T T T
A A A
DS SD SD
L L L
A A A
D D D
L L L
G A G A G A
L L L
G G G
D D D
G G G
D D D
3 A D A D A D 6 A A A
A A A O O O
O O O
1 O O O R R R 6
R R R
R R R
E E E
E E E
N E N E N E
4 N N N 2
N N N 5 O O O
2 3
O O O 6 T T T O O O
T T T
S S S T T T 3 S S S
SD SD SD 1
D D D
1 A D A D A D
A A A
o L L L 7 t A A A
L L L
L L L G G G 1 1 G G G
2 0 G G G
1
4
3 a
3
3
3
3
82 a
4
3 1
Nelson Court
8 6
3 5 26 14 4
6 2 PH 5 6
6
9 7 84 80 54
9 4 3 to 1
AAADDD WWWAATATT PPAPARARKRK KR R OROOAAADDD WWWAATATTTOTOONNN PPAPARARKRK KR R OROOAAADDD AATATTTOTOONNN
RRROOOAAADDD
RRROOOAAADDD
5
2
o
t
9
1
4
5
7 1
t o
5 4 1 7 3 1
e
s e
u s
o u h 27 o to 32 w h t l e r a
B
M 1
e
8 e h
h
t
T o T
2
H H H
6
H A H A H A
R R R H A H A H A
R R R R R R A A A
R RI R IR R RI
S S S
IR RI IR ' ' ' S S S S S S
I I I ' ' ' S S S S S S L L L Buryfield Maltings ' ' '
S S S A A A L L L
N N N A A A L L L
N E N E N E
A A A
N E N E N E
E E E
5
2
1 7
6 o t B B B
B B B
BU BU BU
U U U
UR UR UR
R R R
RY RY RY
Y Y Y
Y F Y F Y F
F F F
F I F I F I E E E I I I E E E I I I E L E L E L
L L L
LD LD LD
D D D
D D D W W W
W W W
W W W A A A
A A A
AY AY AY
Y Y Y
Y Y Y
Works
B B B
B B B
B U B U B U
U U U
U U U R R R
R R R
R Y R Y R Y
Y Y Y
F F F Y Y Y
F F F
I I I F F F
E E E
I I I
E E E
I I I
EL LE LE
L L L
D D D
L L L
D D D
D D D
W W W
W W W
W W W
A A A
2
7
o
A A A
t
1
A Y A Y A Y 1
Y Y Y
Y Y Y 8
e 1
g
n
a h
Telephone 1 c
1
x
E
SITE e
Exchange n
o Black Swan
h
p e Tank l
e Court T
8
6
7
1
0
E E E 2
E E E
S S S 9 E E E 1 S S S S S S
LO LO LO
LO LO LO
1 LO LO LO 2 H H H 3 H H H
HA HA HA
A A A
A R A R A R ILL ILLC ILLC C R R R ILL ILLC ILLC C R R R R R R Old Hall ILL ILLC ILLC C R R R M M M
RI RI RI M M M
S S S I I I M M M
S S S I I I
S' S' S' College
S S S ' ' '
S S S ' ' ' El
S S S
L L L
L L L Court
A A A L L L Sub A A A
AN AN AN
N N N
N E N E N E Sta
E E E E E E 6 8 Works 5 1
7 2 24 1 26
Maplethorpe 12
1
O 4 l Court
The Malthouse 9
35
4 39
2 3
B u 1
5 r y f i e l d
T
e r r a c
e 1 PC
43
Pavilion 44
This copy has been produced specifically for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528
East Herts Council Address: Cintel site, Watton Road, Ware Wallfields Reference: 3/10/0386/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:2500 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL 3514 NW Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 05-October-2010 Page 91 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 92 Agenda Item 5b 5B 3/10/0396/FP - Redevelopment to form 45 Category II type sheltered apartments for the elderly (29x1 bed and 16x2 bed) communal facilities, landscaping and associated car parking at 135 Stansted Road, Bishop’s Stortford, CM23 2AL for McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd.
Date of Receipt: 16.03.2010 Type: Full-Major
Parish: BISHOP’S STORTFORD
Ward: BISHOP’S STORTFORD - MEADS
RECOMMENDATION
That, subject to the applicant entering into a legal obligation pursuant to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to cover the following matters:-
• A financial contribution of £11,000 towards sustainable transport programs and £12,000 to provide the necessary highways infrastructure; • A financial contribution of £4,297 towards Libraries; • A financial contribution of £585,000 towards the off-site provision of affordable housing; • 15% lifetime homes; • Fire hydrant; • £300 standard monitoring fee per clause.
planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-
1. Three Year Time Limit (1T121)
2. Samples of Materials (2E12)
3. Boundary Walls and Fences (2E07)
4. Hard surfacing (3V213)
5. Landscape Design Proposals (4P12)
6. Landscape works implementation (4P13)
7. Levels (2E051)
8. Programme of archaeological work (2E023)
9. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted detailed plans and sections of the proposed road including gradients and method of surface water disposal shall be submitted to in writing and approved by the Page 93 3/10/0396/FP
Local Planning Authority, and no building shall be occupied until the section of road which provides access thereto has been constructed (apart from final surfacing) in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed road works are constructed to an adequate standard in the interests of highway safety.
10. Prior to any site works being commenced sight lines of 2 x 2 metres shall be provided each side of the means of access within which there shall be no obstruction to visibility between 0.6 metres & 2.0 metres in height above adjoining carriageway level.
Reason: To provide visibility for drivers of vehicles entering and leaving the site in the interests of highway safety.
11. Prior to the first occupation of the development the existing footway along the entire Stansted Road frontage of the site shall be widened to 2 metres and a 2 metre wide footway shall be provided along the Legions Way frontage of the site and returning into the access road to the development in accordance with a detailed scheme which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety and pedestrian movement.
12. Existing access closure (3V051)
13. Green Travel Plans (3V272)
14. Provision and retention of parking space (3V234)
15. Prior to the commencement of the development, surface water drainage works shall be carried out in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, and in accordance with Policy ENV21 of the East Hertfordshire Local Plan Second review April 2007.
16. The building shall be used for warden control sheltered accommodation for persons over 60 years in age for a single or eldest occupier and 55 years of age for any additional occupiers of any single unit and for no other purposes including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005.
Page 94 3/10/0396/FP
Reason: To ensure that that no alternative use is made of the building which would be likely to result in an increase in the number of parking spaces required for residents; additional infrastructure pressure; or improved access arrangements.
Directives
1. The applicant is advised that that work undertaken on the highway must be constructed to the current Highway Authority's specification, to an appropriate standard and by a contractor who is authorised to work in the public highway. All works to be undertaken on the adjoining highway shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority and in accordance with Hertfordshire County Council publication "Roads in Hertfordshire - A Guide for New Developments". Before proceeding with the proposed development, the applicant should contact the East Herts Highways Area Office (01992 526900) to obtain their permission and requirements.
2. In the event that the presence of any significant unsuspected contamination becomes evident during the development of the site you are advised to contact the Environmental Health department at East Herts District Council.
3. Street Naming and Numbering (19SN4)
Summary of Reasons for Decision The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the saved policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular policies SD1, SD2, HSG1, EDE2, ENV1, ENV2, ENV21, ENV24, HSG1, HSG3, HSG4, HSG 6, HSG7, TR1, TR2, TR4, TR7, ENV3, BH1, BH3, IMP1. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies and the comments of County Highways is that permission should be granted.
(039610FP.NB)
1.0 Background
1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract.
1.2 The site is located within the built up area of Bishop’s Stortford and is some 0.39 hectares in area. The site is situated to the west of Stansted Road.
Page 95 3/10/0396/FP
1.3 The existing site is occupied by two detached buildings, previously used as a Public House and an ancillary hotel. These existing buildings are set back by approximately 25 metres from the adjacent highway. The Public House is principally 2 storeys in height with single storey extensions to the side and the hotel building is a single storey, low lying building. There is a large area of hard standing to the front of the existing buildings, with a grass bank adjoining the highway.
1.4 The surrounding area is largely characterised by residential properties. The dwellings opposite the site to the east, fronting onto Stansted Road appear 2 storey in height, yet are substantially raised above the road level, and form semi-detached and terraced dwellings. The adjacent residential development to the south at Elliot Court, forms a 2/3 storey building that extends from Stansted Road into Legions Way. To the north and west of the site, the land continues to rise and the site is adjoined by the rear gardens of 2 storey semi-detached and detached properties in Cannons Close. Adjoining the south western boundary of the site are 2 storey terraced properties in Legions Way.
1.5 The proposal is for 45 Category 2 type sheltered housing units. The current design proposes a single ‘L-Shaped’ building which would extend around the eastern and southern parts of the site. An area for car parking is proposed to the rear and west of the building where 22 car parking spaces are proposed to be provided. Areas of soft and hard landscaped amenity spaces are proposed between the building and the proposed car parking. The proposed building would be set back by approximately 9-10metres from the eastern boundary with Stansted Road and a minimum of 8 metres from the southern boundary with Legions Way. A distance of 8.2 metres would be retained from the 2 storey elements of the building to the rear gardens of 17 Legions Way and the dwellings in Cannons Close. An area of amenity space proposed to the north of the site would retain a minimum distance of 3.7metres from the building to the site boundary with the rear garden of the adjoining residential property in Cannons Close.
1.6 A vehicular access is proposed from Legions Way. A new footpath is proposed along the site’s boundary with Legions Way. The existing hedge that is sited along the site’s southern boundary is proposed to be removed in order to enable the footpath to be created along Legions Way. However the Site Plan that has been submitted indicates that new planting will be planted along this boundary to replace the existing hedge. The details of all planting would be subject to Officers’ consideration of a full landscape scheme that is recommended to be submitted by condition should planning permission be granted.
Page 96 3/10/0396/FP
1.7 The proposed building varies between 3 and 2 storeys in height. The front elevation onto Stansted Road has a 2 storey element to the north of the site, with a ridge height of approximately 7.5 metres. This is joined by a lower link to a 3 storey element which reaches a ridge height of approximately 10.5 metres. This design is then effectively repeated with a further 2 storey then 3 storey section of the building. A corner aspect is proposed which fronts onto Stansted Road and extends around the corner into Legions Way. This corner element is the highest point of the proposed building, reaching a ridge height of approximately 12 metres and is designed with a pyramid shaped roof. The elevation that then continues along Legions Way falls to a 2 storey element that links the corner part of the building with a further 3 storey part of the building which finally then declines to 2 storeys at the south western part of the site, adjacent to the 2 storey dwelling at 17 Legions Way.
1.8 The building is proposed to be finished eternally using a mix of brick and render with some flat roofed projections within each elevation. Several Juliet style balconies are proposed at a first and second floor level.
1.9 Since the submission of the application Officers have been negotiating with the applicant regarding the proposed commuted sum towards an off-site provision of affordable housing. A consultant on behalf of the Valuation Office was instructed to make an independent assessment of the viability statement that the applicant had submitted. The consultant identified that a contribution of £585,000 towards affordable housing could viably be made by the applicant. As a result of these negotiations the applicant has now submitted a revised Affordable Housing Statement (Rev B) which commits to the payment of the sum of £585,000 towards affordable housing and replaces the original Affordable Housing Statement which was submitted with the current application that originally proposed a contribution of £324,015.
2.0 Site History
2.1 The site had a previous established use as a Public House.
2.2 Planning permission was granted in 1999, under planning reference number 3/99/0496/FP for alterations to the existing public house and a new building forming 28 bedrooms. This development proposed a 2 storey building in the position of the existing hotel to the northern section of the site.
2.3 In 2002 planning permission was granted for single storey extensions to the Public House under planning reference number 3/02/0462/FP. Page 97 3/10/0396/FP
2.4 Planning Permission was granted under delegated powers for the construction of a 10 bed hotel building in 2002 under planning reference number 3/02/1562/FP.
2.5 Planning permission was refused by the Development Control Committee in August 2008 for 49 Category 2 type sheltered housing for the elderly (35 1 bed and 14 2 bed units) communal facilities, landscaping and associated car parking (ref.3/08/1010/FP) for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development by reason of its size, massing, design, form and layout would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual interests of the surrounding area, contrary to Policies ENV1 and HSG7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
2) The proposed development fails to make adequate provision for affordable housing in accordance with the Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 'Housing', and policy HSG3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 2007.
3) The proposed development does not make adequate provision for improvements to the pedestrian routes surrounding the site, links to the nearby shopping parade and towards other infrastructure improvements to mitigate against the impact of development. It would therefore be contrary to Policy IMP1 and HE9 of East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
4) 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.
2.6 A resubmission of the scheme refused in August 2008 for 49 Category 2 type sheltered housing for the elderly units (ref.3/08/2122/FP) was refused by the Development Control Committee in March 2009, 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.
Page 98 3/10/0396/FP
2) The proposed development fails to make adequate provision for affordable housing in accordance with the Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 'Housing', and policy HSG3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 2007.
3) The proposed development does not make adequate provision for improvements to the pedestrian routes surrounding the site, links to the nearby shopping parade and towards other infrastructure improvements to mitigate against the impact of development. It would therefore be contrary to Policy IMP1 and HE9 of East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
4) 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.
3.0 Consultation Responses
3.1 County Highways do not wish to restrict the grant of permission. In terms of parking the East Herts SPD suggests that parking at a rate of between 0.5 to 1.0 space per unit should be provided as a maximum, with an allowable reduction of 25% based on the fact that the site is located within Zone 4. This equates to a maximum requirement of between 18 and 34 spaces. The proposed provision is based upon surveys undertaken at similar developments in other parts of the country operated by the applicant, and falls within the range suggested by the SPD. Given the location of the site in relation to public transport and the potential low level of car ownership associated with the occupiers of the housing units the proposed level of car parking may be acceptable. Nevertheless County Highways remain concerned that, because of the limited parking, there is a risk of indiscriminate parking taking place on Stansted Road on occasion and they consider that it is not unreasonable to require the developer to fund a Traffic Regulation Order to safeguard against that happening. Following on from that requirement, since consideration of the previous scheme it is apparent that the correct tool for securing sustainable transport planning obligations for a development of this nature is not the County Council toolkit but the East Herts SPD dated October 2008.
In this respect the SPD makes a distinction between first strand and second strand contributions. First stand includes for actual physical measures such as bus shelters whilst second strand measures would go toward investment in schemes to improve public transport, cycling and pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the site. Page 99 3/10/0396/FP
Looking at first strand contributions passenger transport colleagues have again suggested that improvements to the nearest bus stops are required particularly given the potential increase in use by the elderly residents of the development site. The cost of providing the necessary infrastructure was estimated at £19000. However, since these original comments a subsequent representation from County Highways has been received which states that owing to the limited footway widths in this area provision of shelters would be problematic but kerbing enhancements would be possible. A financial contribution of £12,000 for Kassel kerbing would allow two stops on Stansted Road to be completed and would be appropriate in this instance and therefore this contribution can be reduced from £19000 to £12000.
Second strand contributions are based upon a standard contribution of £500 per parking space equating to £11000. Therefore a total accessibility contribution of £23000 is appropriate.
For clarification the frontage footway works will be required in addition to the accessibility contributions and will be secured by Highways Act S278 agreements.
In conclusion now that the applicant is proposing appropriate parking provision; improvements to the frontage footways and has indicated a willingness to make an accessibility contribution County Highways confirm that the development is now acceptable in a highway context, subject to the recommended conditions and advisory notes.
Since the receipt of County Highways’ initial comments, the applicant queried how the highways contributions were derived at, which resulted in a revised contribution request as detailed above. The applicant has also questioned the need for a Traffic Regulation Order, which County Highways confirm would be sought through a Section 278 agreement and the need for a Green Travel Plan which formed part of County Highways recommended conditions. In response to this County Highways have referred to the Report on Transport Issues submitted with the application where the need for a GTP was alluded to. County Highways appreciate that traffic generation would not be that great but it is important that staff and visitors are encouraged to travel by sustainable modes.
3.2 Herts County Council’s Planning Obligations Unit has commented that the proposed development falls above the current threshold where financial contributions are sought. A contribution of £4,297 is sought towards library provision. Fire hydrant provision is also sought. Given that the application is for sheltered apartments for the elderly contributions towards education, Page 100youth and childcare are not required in this instance. 3/10/0396/FP
3.3 The Councils Engineer has commented that the Council have no records of historical flooding at the site and the site is not located within flood zones 2 and 3. The existing structure is borded by a swathe of permeable land and the proposed plans show most of this to be replaced by impermeable surfacing with a consequent risk of increase to flood risk as a result of additional surface water runoff. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the development would be likely to contribute to localised flooding affecting the development site and the surrounding areas. A condition is suggested to ensure that surface water drainage details are therefore submitted for approval.
3.4 Thames Water have no objection to the proposed development .
3.5 The Hertfordshire County Council Historic Environment Unit has commented that the application site is located within an Area of Archaeological Significance. An archaeological evaluation of the site was carried out in May 2008 and it was identified that archaeological remains of Roman date are present within the site. It is therefore recommended that if the Council are minded to grant permission that this is subject to a condition to require further archaeological investigations to be carried out.
3.6 Herts Constabulary comment that it has not been demonstrated that crime prevention measures have been considered and that it would be beneficial for the sheltered accommodation to be built to the Secured by Design standard
3.7 Environmental Health have recommended conditions that relate to noise, air quality and contaminated land.
3.8 The Council’s Housing Development Manager commented that the original Affordable Housing Statement that was submitted with the current application proposed a commuted sum that would provide for an insufficient amount of affordable housing.
4.0 Town Council Representations
4.1 Bishop’s Stortford Town Council objects to the development on the grounds of over intensification of the site both in height and bulk, difficulty of ingress and egress particularly for emergency vehicles and loss of community facility. The Town Council also refer to their comments on the previous applications at this site.
Page 101 3/10/0396/FP
4.2 Bishop’s Stortford Town Council has been notified of the revised Affordable Housing Statement. No additional comments have been received in relation to this; however any further representations received will be reported to Members at the Committee meeting.
5.0 Other Representations
5.1 The applications have been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.
5.2 16 letters of representation have been received which includes a letter from the Parsonage Residents Association, 12 letters of objection and 3 letters of support. The issues raised in the letters of objection can be summarised as follows:-
• There is a fox den in the rear of the pub garden; • Concentration of elderly residents together with Elliott Court is not appropriate; • Dangerous access; • Loss of community facility; • Increased noise levels for adjoining residents; • Loss of visual amenity and adverse visual amenity; • Increased traffic will be a danger to pedestrians; • Effect on value of neighbouring properties; • Increased pollution; • Strain on communal drainage facilities and other infrastructure; • Previous use as pub and hotel is preferred; • Access for emergency vehicles; • Loss of privacy; • Loss of sunlight to front gardens of neighbours in Stansted Road; • Inappropriate positioning of the building; • Insufficient provision of parking would lead to increased pressures on surrounding roads; • The building would be higher than those opposite; • Closure of local doctors surgery increase the need for private vehicles; • Although the number of flats reduced, the number of 2 bed units has increased
The issues raised in the letters of support can be summarised as follows:-
• Accommodation such as this is becoming increasingly needed; • No increase in rush hour traffic; Page 102 3/10/0396/FP
• Less noise nuisance than a replacement public house; • Development would be an improvement to the area as similar developments are well designed and built; • Developing the site would avoid vandalism of vacant site; • Improved design; • The development would provide local jobs and business to local shops;
5.3 All third parties who had submitted a representation in relation to the current application have been notified by letter of the amended Affordable Housing Statement. No additional comments have been received in relation to this; however any further representations received will be reported to Members at the Committee meeting.
6.0 Policy
6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:-
SD1 Making Development More Sustainable SD2 Settlement Hierarchy HSG1 Assessment of Sites EDE2 The Loss of Employment Sites ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping HSG1 Assessment of Sites Not Allocated in This Plan HSG3 Affordable Housing HSG4 Affordable Housing Criteria HSG6 Lifetime Homes HSG7 Replacement Dwellings and Infill Housing Development TR1 Traffic Reduction in New Developments TR2 Access to New Developments TR4 Travel Plans TR7 Car Parking Standards ENV3 Planning Out Crime-New Development ENV21 Surface Water Drainage ENV24 Noise Generating Development BH1 Archaeology & New Development BH3 Archaeological Conditions and Agreements IMP1 Planning Obligations
Page 103 3/10/0396/FP
7.0 Considerations
7.1 The principle consideration in this case is whether the proposed development accords with the ‘saved’ policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and whether the previous reasons for refusal have been overcome.
Principle of residential development
7.2 The application site is located within the built up area of Bishops Stortford where, in accordance with Policy SD2 there is no objection in principle to development. Policy HSG1 states that the suitability of a site for development will be tested against criteria which relates to the availability of previously developed land, accessibility, local infrastructure capabilities, physical constraints on the land and the need to retain a previous use at the site.
7.3 In accordance with Policy HSG1, the application site is a previously developed site and is considered by Officers to represent a sustainable location for residential development. The specific type of residential accommodation that is proposed, being sheltered housing does not prejudice this view. In fact the Housing Needs Survey 2004 identified that there is a need across the district for housing for older people.
Loss of Existing Use
7.4 Policy EDE2, states that the loss of sites that were last in employment use will be permitted subject to the submission of evidence to demonstrate that the retention of the site has been fully explored without success. The pre- text to this policy highlights the Council’s support of small businesses which provide local employment opportunities and therefore Officers believe this policy is relevant within the consideration of the current application.
7.5 The type of employment that would have previously occurred at the site would have been within the Public House and hotel. The applicant has failed to provide details of the likely number of people employed at the site under its previous use and has not detailed the number of employees, such as wardens, that would be likely to be employed at the proposed sheltered housing development. However, notwithstanding this lack of information, Officers do not consider that the loss of employment that would occur from the site’s former use as a Public House and hotel would be of a sufficient number to warrant the application for planning permission being refused for this reason.
Page 104 3/10/0396/FP
7.6 Officers have considered the concerns raised by local residents regarding the loss of the existing Public House and hotel at the site. Although Policy LRC11 seeks the retention of community facilities, these are listed as buildings and land for purposes such as schools, nurseries, hospitals, libraries, schools etc. Policy STC8 states that developments will not be permitted within local centres and rural locations where it would result in the loss of a public house. This site is not considered to be within a local centre. Officers therefore consider that the development proposal cannot be refused on policy grounds due to the loss of the existing public house and hotel.
7.7 Policy HSG1, however, states that the suitability of a site for development will be assessed against the need to retain an existing or previous use at the site. After the submission of the previous planning application made at the site, some confidential financial information has been submitted to the Council which details the failure of the public house at the site and states that the marketing of the site was not restricted and remained open to the continued use as a public house. The site is located a short distance from Bishop Stortford’s town centre and the nearest Public House, ‘The Cock’ is estimated to be around 750metres from the application site. However, local residents have pointed out within their letters that the distance to another Public House to the north of the site is substantially greater. The concerns of local residents are duly noted, however, Officers in this instance do not consider there to be a specific need to seek the retention of the existing uses at the site and advise that refusing the application under Policy HSG1 would be unjustified.
Amount, Size and Mass
7.8 The development proposes 45 units on a site of 0.39 hectares, this equates to a density of approximately 115 dwellings per hectare. This represents a reduction in 4 units from the previous proposal and a reduction from 125 dwellings per hectare. It is considered that due to the nature of the residential development, being 1 and 2 bedroom units the density will be higher than other developments such as traditional residential estates, and although the density is high there is no objection in principle to the form and layout of development that results in this case.
7.9 In terms of the size and mass of the proposed development, the previous proposal was considered by Officers to be acceptable. However, Members of the Committee considered that the size and massing of the proposed development would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual interest of the surrounding area. The decision made by the Committee on the previous application forms an important material consideration for the current application. Page 105 3/10/0396/FP
7.10 The reduction of the development by 4 units, although reducing the density, does a limited amount to reduce the resulting size and amount of operational development that is proposed. Members should note that the reductions in unit numbers has occurred within the 1 bedroom flats, of which 29 are proposed compared to the previous application where 36 1 bed flats were proposed. The number of 2 bed flats has however increased with the current application from 13 to 16 units, which would partially account for the limited reductions that have occurred to the building size. The changes that have been made to address the concerns raised in relation to size and massing include the removal of a single storey lean-to structure to the northern flank; the use of Juliet style balconies instead of standard balconies; the proposed materials have been revised; the corner element has been simplified slightly which appears to involve the modification of fenestration, the removal of balconies and a change to the materials.
7.11 Although the reductions made to the amount of residential development at the site do not result in substantial changes to the overall mass and size of the development, the applicant has nevertheless attempted to address Members concerns by reducing the density by 4 units. Officers consider the proposed amount, size and mass of the proposed development to be acceptable and would not be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual interests of the surrounding area.
Design and Form
7.12 In terms of design and form, in the case of the previous application Officers were satisfied by these aspects of the development. However, Committee Members considered that the design would have resulted in a development that would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual interest of the surrounding area.
7.13 With regards to the form of the development now proposed, this is unchanged, with the proposed building extending in an L-shape across the eastern and southern parts of the site, the various elements of the building and their heights appear to have increase slightly in some places. However, the proposed building, with the exception of the removal of the balconies, essentially does not differ in terms of its form to the previous proposal.
7.14 In relation to the design of the development the following changes have been made; the use of Juliet style balconies instead of standard balconies; revised materials; the corner element has been simplified slightly which appears to involve the modification of fenestration; the addition of external Page 106window cills; the 3 storey blocks that front onto Stansted Road have been 3/10/0396/FP
handed to create a symmetrical frontage; the fenestration has been revised with improved proportions and canopies added to doorways to create clear entrance points.
7.15 The changes made to the detailed design of the building improve the appearance of the development and in particular this is achieved by the revised fenestration; symmetry within the frontage; and the addition of external window cills. However, little weight should be given to the changes made to the materials shown on the plans, as this is a matter that would usually be dealt with by condition should planning permission be granted. The changes made to the detailed design do go some way to improve the appearance of the proposed development; however, Officers do not consider the changes made to be significant. Notwithstanding this, Officers consider the proposed design and form of the development to be acceptable and consider that the resulting development would not be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual interests of the surrounding area.
Layout
7.16 Officers raised concerns with the previous application that the amount of amenity space that was proposed, together with its siting and layout, contributed to a poor standard of layout that was inadequate and incongruous with the development, contrary to the aims and objectives of Policies ENV1 and HSG7. Officers questioned the layout of the amenity space and how accessible and useable the space would be for the residents. A more centrally located area of amenity space was recommended. These points have been addressed within this latest application.
7.17 The removal of the bay parking spaces in Legions Way, allows the proposed footpath to be repositioned alongside the highway and results in an additional area of soft landscaping to be achieved between the southern flank of the building and Legions Way.
7.18 The amenity spaces and parking areas at the rear of the development have been revised with the current application to create a more central area of amenity space. A mix of hard and soft landscaped amenity spaces are proposed at the rear of the development, with small patio and soft landscaped areas to the front of the building adjacent to Stansted Road and Legions Way. The amenity spaces are now easily accessible from all parts of the development and form more meaningful and useable areas. The resulting development appears more attractive and would offer improved amenity spaces for the residents of the development. Officers consider that the previous concerns in relation to layout that appliedPage to 107 the 3/10/0396/FP
previous application submitted have now been successfully overcome and therefore do not recommend that permission is refused in relation to the layout of the development.
Neighbour amenity
7.19 The impact that the development would have upon the amenities of neighbouring occupiers was considered as part of the previous proposals made at the site and the Council found no reason to refuse permission on these grounds.
7.20 Several representations received from neighbours express concerns regarding the impact that the development would have upon the properties opposite the site that front onto Stansted Road and in particular in terms of potential overlooking, loss of light and impact upon visual amenity/outlook.
7.21 The distance from the proposed development to these existing dwellings opposite the site is estimated to be 23-26metres. Although there would be a relatively close relationship between the existing dwellings and the proposed building, the distance proposed is considered to be sufficient in this instance to prevent direct overlooking or loss of privacy. The distance from the proposed development to the existing dwellings at Elliott’s Court, to the south of the site is approximately 20-21metres. Officers do not consider that the proposed development would result in a degree of overlooking of the neighbouring residential properties that would be sufficient to warrant a reason for refusal of this application.
7.22 The outlook from all nearby residential properties would of course change with the development proposed as compared to the existing site, of which only a small proportion is occupied by buildings up to 2 storeys in height and are set back from all boundaries of the site. However, the proposed development is considered to be appropriately sited such that this change would not be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings and would not, in Officers view, warrant the refusal of planning permission.
Parking
7.23 In terms of parking, the East Herts SPD on Vehicle parking at new development recommends a maximum parking provision of between 0.5 to 1.0 space per unit with an allowable reduction of 25% based on the fact that the site is located within Zone 4. This equates to a maximum requirement of between 18 and 34 spaces.
Page 108 3/10/0396/FP
7.24 22 car parking spaces are proposed within the existing site which represents an increase in 2 spaces compared to the previously refused scheme, despite a reduction in the development by 4 units. The previous scheme in addition to the 20 on site spaces proposed 5 on-road spaces in Legions Way, however, Officers in their recommendation did not take these off site parking spaces into account in considering the number of spaces available for residents as these spaces would not be reserved for the residents of the site or their visitors
7.25 The applicant has submitted some supporting information with regards to parking provision. It is stated that in accordance with the definition of Category II sheltered housing, the age of residents would be restricted such that they must be 60 years of age or over, and 55 for a partner living in the same apartment. However research undertaken by McCarthy and Stone in 1996 found that the average age of entry to their developments was 75 years and 6 months, an age which is now predicted to be rising. The applicant has provided survey result of parking at similar developments which show that at a site of 48 units a demand for 17 spaces was recorded; at a site of 40 units there was a demand for 15 spaces and a site of 34 units a demand for 12 spaces was recorded.
7.26 Having regard to the additional 2 spaces that are proposed for the current application; the reduced density by 4 units; the information that has been submitted by the applicant to justify the level of parking provided and the recommendation made by County Highways, Officers consider there to be inadequate grounds to refuse planning permission due to an insufficient provision of parking.
7.27 Officers have recommended that, should planning permission be granted, this is subject to a condition that would restrict the occupation of the residential units to people aged 60 or over in age for a single or eldest occupier and 55 years of age for any additional occupiers. This restriction is considered to be appropriate and reasonable in this case as this is the age restriction that the applicant has based their justification for the level of parking upon. Furthermore, Officers consider that the provision of 22 parking spaces for 45 residential units in this location would not be sufficient if the flats were able to be occupied by all age groups. The proposed restriction would prevent the occupation of the units by younger people and families who are more likely to depend upon private vehicles than residents of 60 years and above.
Highways/Access
7.28 Several of the representations received from local residents express concern regarding the use of the access from Legions Way.Page However, 109 3/10/0396/FP
County Highways consider the proposed development to be acceptable in a highways context and are content with the principle of access from Legions Way and with the closure of the existing access from Stansted Road which is considered to be a positive benefit in highway terms. It is appreciated that traffic will increase on what is a residential cul-de-sac at present but the likely traffic generation from the development is not considered to be significant. Officers therefore consider the access proposed to be acceptable.
Affordable Housing
7.29 The applicant has proposed a commuted sum to allow the provision for off- site affordable housing as opposed to making provision on site in accordance with Policy HSG3. The sum that has been offered is £585,000 which the applicant has demonstrated is the maximum amount that can be offered for affordable housing before the development becomes unviable. The Council’s own consultant has confirmed this financial assessment.
7.30 The applicant has also previously provided an explanation for the failure to make an on site provision for affordable housing. These relate to the site being impractical to create two separate blocks of accommodation; and a single shared block poses maintenance problems with the shared areas. Due to the concerns raised in relation to the layout of the site Officers previously considered that the division of the development into separate blocks should not be ruled out which would then have enabled an on-site provision to be made. However, now that Officers are satisfied by the layout of the site, based upon the current proposal, it is considered that an on site provision would not be ideal and Officers therefore accept the principle of a commuted sum for an off-site provision to be made.
7.31 Policy HSG3 requires the provision of “up to 40%” affordable housing and therefore the Council must consider the affordable contribution that would be reasonable and viable for this site.
7.32 The Council’s adopted SPD on Affordable Housing and Lifetime Homes states that it is accepted that there will always be exceptional circumstances that influence the provision of affordable housing and the Council will take these circumstances into consideration. It states that developers will have to provide satisfactory evidence to enable the Council to determine the validity of the exceptional circumstances and their impact on the development. It goes on to state that a developer should take affordable housing provision and other known constraints into account when negotiating the purchase of the land.
Page 110 3/10/0396/FP
7.33 The applicant has submitted an Affordable Housing Statement with the application. The statement has used a residual land value assessment which considers the income from a development in terms of sales or rent and compares this with the costs associated with developing that scheme. It comments that the maximum amount available for affordable housing within the assessment is based on the difference between the unencumbered land value and the existing or alternative use value of the site, since any further requirement would not leave enough to bring the land forward for development.
7.34 The current Affordable Housing Statement (Rev B) concludes that the maximum amount that can be utilised towards affordable housing provision, allowing a 20% developer profit, before the development becomes unviable is £585,000. The viability assessment that has been submitted by the applicant has been verified by an independent consultant at the Valuation Office. The currently proposed contribution is significantly greater than that proposed for the previously refused scheme which would have been £40,532 and is also a substantial improvement on the sum that was originally proposed with the current application which was £324,015. Officers are satisfied that the proposed contribution is justified and is sufficient to provide adequate affordable housing elsewhere within Bishop’s Stortford, in accordance with the aims of Policy HSG3.
Other Matters
7.35 With regards to the concern raised by the Councils engineer in relation to flood risk, this concern is raised due to the proposed replacement of permeable land with impermeable. However, as the majority of the frontage of the existing site is surfaced with tarmac and therefore impermeable, and much of the site is also occupied by the existing buildings the only permeable areas on the existing site are those grassed areas which are concentrated to the rear of the buildings. Although some of the grass areas would be lost to the proposed building, the majority of the grassed area that would be lost would be used for the parking and garden areas which would consist of a mix of hard surfacing materials and soft landscaped areas. Having regard to the concerns raised by the Engineer, Officers consider that, should planning permission be granted for the proposed development, the recommended condition to require details to be submitted of surface water drainage works would be reasonable in this case.
7.36 The third reason for refusal given for the previous scheme related to an inadequate provision for improvements to pedestrian routes and other infrastructure improvements. With this previous proposal the applicant was unwilling to make any financial contributions above the £40,532 that was offered for affordable housing. As contributions were requestedPage from111 3/10/0396/FP
County Highways and the County Council towards libraries this reason for refusal related to the inadequate provision proposed in relation to these matters. The applicant has now committed to providing these financial contributions and therefore this previous reason for refusal has been overcome.
7.37 In considering the current proposal Officers have had due regard to the representations made by the Town Council and local residents. Many of the issues raised have been considered with the previous applications made at the site and it was concluded by the Council that the only outstanding issues related to the layout, size, massing, design and form of the development; the inadequate provision of affordable housing; inadequate provision for infrastructure improvements and inadequate parking.
8.0 Conclusion
8.1 Having regard to the representations made by consultees and local residents, Officers consider that the details submitted for the proposed development are acceptable. The proposed development accords with the relevant policies of the Local Plan and has fully overcome the concerns that Officers raised in relation to the layout, the provision for affordable housing, infrastructure improvements and parking that formed part of the previous proposal at the site.
8.2 Officers consider that the size, massing, design and form of the development is acceptable and would not be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual interests of the surrounding area
8.3 Having regard to the above considerations, it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to a S106 agreement and the conditions at the head of this report.
Page 112 3
1
8
7
1 5 1
0
6
1 BBIISISSHHOOPPP
HHOOPPP GGRRAAYYY RR
AAYYY RRIISISSEEE
0 1
4a
4 1
2 8
1
1
8 0 6
CCCAAANNN CCCAAANNNNNNOOONNNSSS CCCLLLOOOSSSEEE 178
EEE SSSEEE
OOOSSS LLLOOO 1 C CCLLL SSS C CC 9 NNNSSS 7 NNN 1 OOO NNN NNN
16 AAA
CCC
8 6
1 1
1 1
OORRCCCHHH CCCHHHAAARRRDDD R RROO DDD R RROOAAADDD
166
Hotel
2 2
1 Waggon and Horses 156 PH
5 3 152 PH 1
2
1
13 17
142
D D D D D D LLL D D D LLLEEE A A A LLLEEEGG A A A A A A 8 EEEGGIIOIONNN OONNNSSS O O O NNNSSS O O O SSS W WAAAYYY O O O AAAYYY R R R YYY R R R R R R
D D D D D D D D D
E E E E E E E E E
T T T T T T 1 T T T
S S S S S S S S S
N N N
N N N
N N N 1b 2 3
A A A 1
A A A A A A 1a
3 T T T 1 T T T T T T
S S S S S S S S S E lliott Court 1to35
4
a 4
Hawthorns
1 6 a SITE
7
1 1 6
125
2
2 9
SSS SSS SSS NNN NNN NNN EEE EEE EEE DDD 1 DDD 1 DDD 5 RRR RRR RRR AAA AAA AAA GGG G G G G G G
YYY YYY YYY RRR RRR 7 RRR RRR 2 RRR RRR EEE EEE EEE HHH HHH HHH CCC CCC CCC
8 1 7 2
1 2 3 4 18
This copy has been produced specifically for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528
East Herts Council Address: 135, Stansted Road, Bishops Stortford, CM23 2AL Wallfields Reference: 3/10/0396/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:1250 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL4921 NW / 4922 SW Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 13-May-2010 Page 113 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 114 Agenda Item 5c 5C (a) 3/10/1396/FP - Erection of extension to provide 43 en-suite bedrooms; (b) 3/10/1401/LB-Erection of extension and glazed link to provide 43 en- suite bedrooms; (c) 3/10/1543/LB- Internal alterations to amalgamate bedrooms in courtyard building at Fanhams Hall Hotel, Fanhams Hall, Fanhams Hall Road, Ware, Hertfordshire, SG12 7PZ for Exclusive Hotels.
Date of Receipt: (a) 11.08.2010 Type: (a) Full – Major (b) 31.08.2010 (b) Full-Other (c) 26.08.2010 (c) Full-Other
Parish: THUNDRIDGE, WARESIDE
Ward: HUNSDON, THUNDRIDGE AND STANDON
RECOMMENDATION
(a) That Planning Permission be REFUSED in respect of 3/10/1396/FP for the following reasons:-
1. The application site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined in the East Hertfordshire Local Plan wherein permission will not be given except in very special circumstances for development for purposes other than those required for mineral extraction, agriculture, small scale facilities for participatory sport and recreation or other uses appropriate to a rural area. No such special circumstances are apparent in this case, and the proposal would therefore be contrary to policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
2. The proposal would result in the loss of a number of prominent and attractive trees and the Local Planning Authority are not satisfied that the proposed replacement planting would be sufficent to mitigate against the harm that their removal would have to the character and appearance of the site and the visual impact that the proposed building would have upon the registered historic garden,contrary to policies ENV2, ENV11 and BH16 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
3. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that an adequate sequential assessment has been carried out as required by PPS4 and the Council is not satisfied, from the information submitted, that the proposed development is essential to ensure the future viability of the existing business. The proposal is thereby contrary to national planning policy set out in PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. Page 115 (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
4. The application lacks sufficient information regarding the presence of protected species to enable the Local Planning Authority to properly consider the planning merits of the application. The proposal would thereby be contrary to policy ENV16 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
5. The proposal fails to make adequate financial provision towards sustainable transport programs. It would thereby be contrary to the provisions of policies TR1 and IMP1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
(b) That Listed Building Consent be GRANTED in respect of 3/10/1401/LB subject to the following conditions:-
1. Listed Building three year time limit (1T141)
2. Samples of materials (2E123)
3. Listed building (new doors) (8L043)
4. Listed building (new window) (8L033)
5. Prior to any building works being first commenced, detailed drawings of the new glazed link at a scale of 1:200 or similar shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the historic and architectural character of the building is properly maintained, in accordance with the aims of PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment.
6. Listed building (making good) (8L103)
Summary of Reasons for Decision The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the saved policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that consent should be granted.
(c) That Listed Building Consent be GRANTED in respect of 3/10/1543/LB subject to the following conditions:-
1. Listed Building three year time limit (1T141)
Page 116 (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
2. Listed building (new doors) (8L043)
3. Listed building (making good) (8L103)
Summary of Reasons for Decision The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the saved policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that consent should be granted.
(139610FP.NB)
1.0 Background
1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract.
1.2 Fanhams Hall Hotel is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt to the north east of Ware and is sited within substantial grounds of 10.64 hectares.
1.3 The principle building at the site is Grade II* Listed and a more recent addition to the site, known as North Lodge is Grade II Listed. Various other structures within the grounds of the hotel including stone lanterns, steps, bridges and outbuildings within the gardens are also Grade II Listed. The site is within a Historic Garden which is listed in the English Heritage’s ‘Register of Historic Parks and Gardens’.
1.4 The applications made under planning reference numbers 3/10/1396/FP and 3/10/1401/LB propose a 3 storey extension to provide 43 additional en- suite bedrooms.
1.5 The proposed extension would be sited to the north of the existing hotel buildings at the site on an area of lawn that is currently occupied by several mature Pine trees. The proposed building would be linked to the Grade II listed North Lodge, which is referred to within the applicant’s submission as the Annexe, by a single storey glazed link. The 3 storey building would be sited at a distance of approximately 3.5 metres from the rear of the Annexe, the proposed building would then extend in a northern direction from the existing building reaching a length of 38 metres.
1.6 The part of the building that is closest to the existing Annexe building has a hipped roof which reaches a ridge height of 8.2 metres when taken from the western elevation and 7.4 metres when taken from the eastern elevation, this difference is due to a change in land levels. This ridge height is Page 117 (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
approximately 0.4 metre lower than that of the adjacent Annexe building. The land levels decline more substantially from a south to north direction which results in the ridge height of the building increasing to 9.8 metres. The ridge height of the Annexe buildings vary from 7.6 metres to 8.4 metres and the height of the Grade II* listed building at the site is approximately 13 metres.
1.7 The building is proposed with gable end projections within the north, east and west elevations. These are designed with parapet gables to match
those found on the Annexe building. Thend building is proposed with dormer windows within the roof to serve the 2 floor accommodation. These windows are designed, along with the remaining fenestration, which have stone quoins, to match that found on the existing Annexe. Several chimneys are proposed which would protrude no higher than 2 metres from the ridge of the roof of the building.
1.8 The application made for Listed Building Consent under lpa reference 3/10/1543/LB, proposes internal alterations, including the removal of existing partitions to amalgamate existing bedrooms within the courtyard building as the applicant claims there is little demand for single bedrooms and this would create double bedrooms to make a more viable use of the premises. Officer’s understand that these works would result in the loss of 14 bedrooms.
2.0 Site History
2.1 Fanhams Hall was previously used as a business training centre during which time various extensions were added to the buildings and in the late 1980’s the buildings were considerably extended which resulted in the existing configuration.
2.2 In 2005, under lpa reference 3/05/0001/FP planning permission was granted for the change of use of the buildings from a business training centre to a hotel, its current use.
2.3 In 2006 under lpa reference 3/06/2160/LB Listed Building Consent was granted for internal alterations to the building.
3.0 Consultation Responses
3.1 The County Development Unit has commented in relation to the need for waste minimisation and has suggested that these issues can be addressed by condition if permission is granted.
Page 118 (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
3.2 The Herts Biological Records Centre have commented that the site plan includes land that has been identified as a County Wildlife Site (46/044) Fanhams Hall Meadow and it is recommended that should permission be granted that careful attention is given to the need to conserve the Wildlife Site. HBRC recommend that an assessment should be made in relation to the on-site trees to be removed and their potential for bat roosts and nesting birds and a survey for great crested newts should be conducted prior to the determination of the application.
3.3 The Campaign to Protect Rural England objects to the proposed development and questions the special circumstances that the applicant presents in relation to additional bedrooms being needed to secure the future of the listed building.
3.4 County Highways do not wish to restrict the grant of permission subject to conditions in relation to the movement and parking of construction vehicles and the storage of materials, wheel washing facilities, and the submission of a Green Travel Plan. County Highways confirm general agreement with the findings of the Transport Statement submitted in support of the application and welcome the intention to provide an update to the existing Green Travel Plan. The only major point of disagreement is the lack of sustainable transport contribution being offered.
The proposal is well over the thresholds referred to in the East Herts Planning Obligations SPD and whilst the applicant is not suggesting that additional parking is proposed or indeed required, they have identified that there will be additional peak hour traffic movements. The Hertfordshire County Council Planning Obligations Toolkit calculates financial contributions based on increase in peak hour movements as opposed to parking provision as referred to in the East Herts SPD. Whilst it is acknowledged that the increase in traffic is not significant in terms of numbers it is felt that it is not unreasonable for this development to make a Sustainable Transport contribution toward measures that would assist visitors to the establishment that choose to attend by public transport or staff who may choose to walk or cycle. In this respect the Hertford and Ware Urban Transport plan includes a variety of measures to promote and encourage sustainable travel. Based on the toolkit and the findings of the submitted Transport Statement a contribution of just £11,000 is appropriate. With regard to on-site highway issues the development site is remote from the public highway, parking and vehicle service/delivery areas are retained and should there be a need for extra parking at times of peak demand there is sufficient land to accommodate these needs without spilling out onto the public highway. No changes to the existing access and egress arrangements are proposed or required. Hence the minimal number of appropriate highway conditions included in this response. Page 119 (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
3.5 The Councils Engineer has commented that the site is outside of flood risk zones 2 and 3, has no records of historical flooding and is not shown as susceptible to overland flows. However, limited information is given in relation to surface water drainage and as part of the building would be sunken into the ground this would be vulnerable to flooding from surface water runoff.
3.6 The Hertfordshire Gardens Trust comment that whilst they have no objection in principle to the extension concerns are raised that it would impinge on the garden and the views across the garden. Mitigation planting is proposed and until such time as the replacement pine trees are mature enough to screen the extension these will not be sufficient to cancel out the impact of the new build upon the mature landscape. The Trust objects to the use of ‘Chancer Village’ bricks as opposed to harling (lime coating).
3.7 The Councils Landscape Officer recommends refusal of the application on the grounds that the location, size and scale of the proposals has left insufficient scope for any significant landscape measures to allow a sympathetic interface between the proposed development and either the existing car park or the surrounding historic garden.
3.8 The Conservation Officer has recommended approval of all three applications. With regards to the applications made for the extension to the hotel (lpa. 3/10/1396/FP and 3/10/1401/LB) they have stated that although the impact the extension would have on the immediate and wider setting of Fanhams Hall is recognised, it is also noted that the design has been carefully considered to reflect the strong architectural features of the principle buildings which contribute to the character and appearance of their setting resulting in a modern constructed extension with a distinct relationship with its historic host. The success of which will be in the use and quality of materials proposed, a matter which can be dealt with via condition. The principle consideration, however, is the mass and scale of the proposal and the impact this would have on the wider setting of the historic buildings, landscape and gardens which include important views and vistas, a concern which could be overcome by the introduction of a good landscaping scheme including the re-instatement of mature pine trees around the periphery of the building providing some sense of screening which in turn will soften the overall mass, scale and distinct design.
In assessing the physical impact on the historic fabric of the Grade II North Lodge this is limited to a glazed link which will be attached to the existing projecting parapet gable, access to which is through an existing opening. The main concern therefore being the manner in which the frame of the link will be attached to the historic building a matter which can be dealt with in Page 120more detail via condition. (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
In summary, although the extension is substantial, it is considered to have a minimal impact on the overall architectural and historic significance of the collection of listed buildings and historic landscape / gardens that make up Fanham Hall.
The Conservation Officer’s comments in relation to the application for Listed Building Consent for the internal alterations to the existing building (lpa. 3/10/1543/LB) states that the building in question has limited historic significance and as such the proposals would have limited impact on the historic fabric and is therefore acceptable.
4.0 Parish Council Representations
4.1 Both Thundridge and Wareside Parish Councils have been consulted on the applications and no comments from either of these Councils have been received.
5.0 Other Representations
5.1 The applications have been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.
5.2 No letters of representation have been received.
6.0 Policy
6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:-
GBC1 Green Belt ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping ENV11 Protection of Existing Hedgerows and Trees ENV16 Protected Species ENV17 Wildlife Habitats SD1 Making Development More Sustainable LRC10 Tourism BH16 Historic Parks and Gardens TR1 Traffic Reduction in New Developments TR2 Access to New Developments TR3 Transport Assessments TR4 Travel Plans TR7 Car Parking- Standards TR20 Development Generating Traffic on Rural Roads IMP1 Planning Conditions and Obligations Page 121 (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
6.2 In addition, the following National policy guidance are particularly relevant:-
PPG 2: Green Belts PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment PPS 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
7.0 Considerations
(a) 3/10/1396/FP
7.1 The determining issues in relation to this application for planning permission are:
• Whether the principle of the development is acceptable, and whether very special circumstances exist to warrant a departure from Green Belt policy;
• The justification given for an extension to a town centre use in this rural location.
• The impact of the development on the setting of the Listed Buildings;
• The impact of the development on the Historic Garden;
• The loss of existing trees;
• The impact of the development on protected species; and
• The necessary contributions towards sustainable transport programs.
Principle of development
7.2 Both PPG2 and Local Plan Policy GBC1 outline specific types of development that are appropriate within the Green Belt, which includes agricultural related developments and essential facilities for outdoor sports and recreation. Developments involving extensions to hotels are not outlined as appropriate development within PPG2 and Policy GBC1 of the Local Plan. PPG2 states that inappropriate development is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt and that the onus is upon the applicant to demonstrate that the harm that the inappropriate development that is proposed would cause to the Green Belt would be clearly outweighed by other considerations. Very special circumstances must be demonstrated to permit the proposed inappropriate development and to justify a departure from local and national policy. 7.3 The ‘very special circumstances’ that the applicant argues within their Page 122 (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
supporting information relate to the future protection and maintenance of the heritage assets at the site, the future viability of the hotel and the wider economic contributions of the proposal. These ‘very special circumstances’ are discussed below:
Future protection and maintenance of heritage assets
7.4 The Design and Access Statement outlines that when the applicant purchased the site the buildings were in need of extensive refurbishment and the grounds had suffered some neglect. These works have come at a financial cost and it is a cost that will continue to need to be met on a regular basis if these important assets are to be conserved for the future. The applicant argues that the only means by which the future conservation of the heritage assets can be achieved is by ensuring that the business remains viable and successful.
7.5 Whilst Officers agree that the future preservation of the historical assets at the site is of importance and accept that achieving this would endure financial costs for the applicant, there is no evidence to suggest that any substantial repairs are currently required to the heritage assets at the site. Without any evidence to demonstrate that the existing business cannot sustain the necessary repairs to the heritage assets Officer’s recommend that limited weight is given to these circumstances.
The future viability of the hotel
7.6 The applicant outlines that there is currently a mismatch between the demand for services and facilities provided by the hotel as a wedding and conference venue and the availability of bedrooms. A needs analysis has been submitted to accompany the application. This analysis explains that the main conference rooms at Fanhams Hall have a combined capacity of 430 delegates, whereas there are only 77 bedrooms at the hotel.
7.7 In addition to the concerns regarding the amount of rooms available compared to the conference room capacity, the applicant explains that there are problems due to the existing size of some of the bedrooms. Some of the existing bedrooms are single rooms which are difficult to occupy as most guests expect or require a double room. The application submitted for Listed Building Consent (ref. 3/10/1543/LB) proposes the demolition of internal partitions in order to amalgamate the existing single bedrooms into larger double rooms. The floor plans show that the part of the Annexe building where these alterations are proposed currently accommodates 47 rooms and as a result of the proposal to create larger rooms this would be reduced to 33 bedrooms. Although the proposed internal alterations to enlarge the rooms would overcome the existing problems withPage occupying 123 (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
the single bedrooms, it appears that this would inevitably displace 14 rooms.
7.8 The report outlines that over 75 potential bookings have been lost since January 2008 due to the quality of the hotels bedrooms and its inability to host delegates on site.
7.9 Officers acknowledge the need to improve the size of the existing single rooms and understand that this would inevitably result in a reduction in the number of bedrooms that are available at the hotel. Officers have not been led to the conclusion by any of the evidence that has been submitted however, that the loss of these rooms would result in the failure of the existing business and furthermore no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the existing business is not profitable. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has outlined that the existing occupancy rate of the bedrooms is 39%, whereas other hotels in the group achieve a 70%+ occupancy rate. Based on the information that has been submitted Officers consider there is justification for the provision of new accommodation to replace the bedrooms that would be displaced by the internal alterations. This would ensure that the proposed internal alterations would make a more efficient use of the existing building and the accommodation that it provides without resulting in a loss of facilities for the hotel. It is assumed that as the applicant claims that the existing single rooms are difficult to occupy that this proposal would also increase the occupancy rate of the hotel to a level that is above 39%. However, the number of rooms that would be displaced by the internal alterations would be just 14 and therefore these circumstances do not justify the full 43 additional bedrooms that are proposed in the new extension to the hotel.
7.10 In relation to the applicant’s argument that the number of bedrooms available at the site is disproportionate to the conference room capacity at the site, the applicant has stated that the conference capacity is 430 delegates, compared to 77 bedrooms. The applicant argues that the number of bedrooms that the hotel accommodates is insufficient compared to their conference facilities, which results in business being lost to other nearby hotels. In order for a fair comparison to be made between the facilities at the application site and nearby competitors it would seem reasonable to Officers to compare hotels of a similar standard. The supporting documents suggest that Fanhams Hall is currently classed as a 3*/4* hotel. Nearby hotels which are of a similar star rating to Fanhams Hall includes The Roebuck (3*), Tewinbury Farm (4*), Theobalds Park (4*) and Down Hall (4*). In addition the needs assessment claims that Hanbury Manor, albeit a 5* hotel is also strong competition for Fanhams Hall. Using information from the websites of these hotels the table below has been Page 124devised by Officers in order to compare the number of rooms with the (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
conference capacity.
Hotel No. of Conference Capacity Ratio Bedrooms Hanbury 161 592 1 : 3.68 Manor The Roebuck 49 200 1 : 4.08 Theobalds 141 627 1 : 4.45 Park Fanhams 77 430 1 : 5.84 Hall Down Hall 99 911 1 : 9.20 Tewinbury 29 404 (not including the 1 : 13.93 Farm marquee)
Members should be aware that the above figures are estimated and are included in this report in order to make some comparison between Fanhams Hall and other hotels in the area in order to assist in the determination of whether the existing number of bedrooms are disproportionate to the conference capacity and whether these circumstances would result in the loss of business to local competitors.
7.11 The above figures show that three of the five nearby hotels have more bedrooms to provide for their conference room capacity than Fanhams Hall. However, the differences between these ratios are small, whereas the two hotels that have less bedrooms than Fanhams Hall to provide for their conference capacity, Tewinbury Farm and Down Hall have a significantly higher ratio. Officers consider that the above figures demonstrate that the number of bedrooms available at Fanhams Hall compared to the conference capacity is not significantly disproportionate when compared to other nearby hotels. However, it is acknowledged that the proposed internal alterations to amalgamate the single rooms would change the existing ratio and result in less bedrooms to provide for the conference facilities. Officers consider that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the existing number of bedrooms at the hotel is substantially disproportionate to their conference capacity. Furthermore, even if this were the case, Officers are nevertheless not satisfied that this would justify a new building for 43 additional bedrooms within the Green Belt, particularly when there is no evidence that the existing business with its number of bedrooms for the conference capacity is not profitable.
Page 125 (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
The wider economic contributions of the proposal
7.12 Policy LRC10 of the Local Plan states the Council will encourage suitable tourism proposals in appropriate locations and will give favourable consideration to suitable proposals for visitor accommodation within the District. The pre-amble to this policy states that one key factor restricting the development of tourism within East Hertfordshire is the limited availability of visitor accommodation. New build hotels are, by size and nature, more appropriately located within towns. However, proposals for small-scale hotel or other visitor accommodation may also be acceptable within other settlements, and the adaption and re-use of existing buildings for small-scale visitor accommodation may be acceptable in villages and the countryside.
7.13 Whilst Policy LRC10 in principle supports tourism proposals in appropriate locations and in particular recognises the need for visitor accommodation, the application site is within the Green Belt where development other than for small-scale accommodation is not favoured by LRC10.
7.14 The applicant argues that the extension of Fanhams Hall would maximize its potential as an existing tourism opportunity within the District and will increase spending and footfall into the nearby town of Ware. Officers acknowledge that the extension to the hotel may result in a small increase in employment opportunities at the site. However, as the site is an out of town location and within the Green Belt this is not a sustainable location for growth. Officers do not consider the benefits of a potential increase in employment opportunities in this case would outweigh the harm that the development would have upon the openness of the Green Belt. Although the applicant argues that the proposed extension would secure the retention of the existing business which provides employment opportunities within the District, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the existing business would fail without the proposed extension.
7.15 PPS 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth states that in order to deliver the Government’s objective of promoting vital and viable town centres, development should be focused in existing centres and that for development of this kind applicants are required to demonstrate the need for development; that the development is of an appropriate scale; that there are no more central sites for the development; that there would be no unacceptable impacts on existing centres and that locations are accessible. All of these issues should be addressed in a sequential assessment in order to justify the proposed extension to a hotel use that is located outside of a town centre. PPS 4 does indicate that the expansion of existing tourist and visitor facilities in the rural area may be appropriate where the scale of Page 126the extension is appropriate and where it would help to ensure the future (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
viability of the business. Officers however consider that insufficient information has been submitted in this case, both in terms of the sequential assessment and the viability of the existing business.
7.16 With regards to the assumption made by the applicant that the proposed extension would result in increased spending and footfall within Ware, Officers are cautious of this claim having had regard to the estimation within the applicants supporting information that approximately 50% of the hotel’s business is from weddings and 50% from conferences which would be less likely to draw footfall into the surrounding towns than customers visiting the site for leisure purposes.
7.17 In accordance with PPS 4, as the extension would create additional floor space in excess or 200sqm, a sequential test is required to be carried out by the applicant in order to identify whether there are any town centre sites that could be utilised to satisfy any identified need prior to an out of centre site. With regards to a sequential test the needs analysis that has been submitted by the applicant states that whilst it could be argued that there may be available sites within or outside the District where additional hotels could be developed, it is Fanhams unique setting within a listed building, together with its existing and well established location and reputation as a quality conference and wedding destination that preclude it from being replicated elsewhere. As such the applicant considers that the proposed site of the extension to be the most appropriate, as this would enable the hotel to develop its existing demand, thereby generating additional visitation to Ware, benefiting the local community. Officers consider that the above statement is not sufficient and does not demonstrate that a sequential test has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of PPS 4. Whilst Officers support the retention of the existing hotel and acknowledge that the existing setting is a benefit to the appeal of the hotel to its customers, Officers do not support the proposed extension to the hotel and consider that other hotel development could be carried out within nearby town centre locations to meet the Districts needs for additional accommodation for tourists. Without the benefit of a satisfactory sequential test being carried out, or sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the development is essential for the viability of the hotel, the proposal is contrary to the aims of PPS4.
Impact upon the setting of the Listed Buildings
7.18 The proposed extension is of a substantial size and as such the impact that the development would have upon the setting of the Listed Buildings at the site is an important consideration. The Conservation Officer’s comments conclude that the impact that the proposed extension would have upon the setting of the Listed Buildings would be acceptable. The Conservation Officer outlines that the design has been carefully considered to reflect the Page 127 (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
strong architectural features of the principle buildings which contribute to the character and appearance of the setting resulting in a modern constructed extension with a distinct relationship with its historic host.
7.19 Officers consider that, should the need for an extension of this size within the Green Belt be justified, then the proposed design and siting of the building would be an appropriate option in relation to the setting of the Listed Buildings.
7.20 The objection received from the Hertfordshire Gardens Trust in relation to the use of ‘Chancer Village’ bricks as opposed to ‘harling’ or ‘ pebble dash’ is duly noted. However, during a joint site visit the applicant has shown Officers an area of the original Grade II* Listed Building where a yellow stock brick has been used. The use of a ‘pebble-dash’ type of material for the adjacent buildings at the site is considered to be a technique that was appropriate to the time of their construction and Officers consider the use of ‘pebble-dash’ materials for the proposed building to replicate this would not appear sympathetic to the setting of the Listed Buildings or do any particular justice to the proposed design and appearance of the proposed extension. Officers have no objection to the use of brick for the proposed extension in principle, however, recommend that a condition is attached to the Listed Building Consent in order for samples of materials to be submitted and agreed by the Local Planning Authority to ensure that the choice of materials are appropriate.
Loss of Trees and Impact upon the Historic Garden
7.21 A total of 22 trees are proposed to be removed from the site to enable the construction of the proposed extension. The Arboricultural Statement that has been submitted with the application defines 17 of these trees as ‘C’ category trees which in accordance with BS 5837:2005 should not impose a significant constraint on development. However, 5 Pine trees are classed as either Category A or B. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has stated that the proposed removal of the significant Category A and B pine trees for the proposed accommodation should be resisted, as the loss of these trees would harm the setting of Fanhams Hall and be detrimental to the registered historic garden.
7.22 Whilst it is noted that the majority of the trees that are proposed to be removed are classed as Category C, Officers consider that these trees nevertheless cumulatively make a significant contribution to the appearance of the site.
Page 128 (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
7.23 The applicant proposes new planting at the site to mitigate against the loss of the existing trees and the impact that the development would have upon the setting of the listed buildings and the historic garden. A total of 18 new Pine trees are shown on the proposed landscape plan. The comments that have been received from the Council’s Landscape Officer and the Historic Gardens Trust raise concern in relation to the impact that the development would have upon the setting of the historic gardens at the site. Policy BH16 states that on sites listed in English Heritage’s ‘Register of Historic Parks and Gardens’ and other locally important sites, development proposals that significantly harm their special historic character, appearance or setting will not be permitted. The Historic Gardens Trust suggest that the proposed replacement planting would not be sufficient until such time that it is mature enough to screen the extension. Officers are concerned that due to the size, scale and height of the proposed extension and its siting close to the landscaped gardens at the site, that the development would have a detrimental impact upon the setting of this Historic Garden, contrary to the aims of Policy BH16.
7.24 Officers are concerned that the loss of the important and prominent Category A and B trees together with the loss of the a substantial number of Category C trees would be harmful to the existing character and appearance of the site and, furthermore, that the proposed new planting would not be sufficent to mitigate against the harm that their removal would have on the character and appearance of the site and the visual impact that the proposed building would have upon the registered historic garden.
Highways Matters and Parking
7.25 With regards to the implications that the proposed development would have upon access and parking County Highways have confirmed that they do not wish to restrict the grant of permission. However, as the applicant has identified that there will be additional peak hour traffic movements County Highways require a financial contribution of £11,000 towards Sustainable Transport for measures that would assist visitors to the establishment that choose to attend by public transport or staff who may choose to walk of cycle.
7.26 The Transport Statement that has been submitted in support of the application states that it is considered that the assessment demonstrates that the development would not have a significant impact upon any Council services and would not result in an increase to parking provision and as such a contribution towards sustainable transport is not necessary.
Page 129 (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
7.27 Officers consider that a sustainable transport contribution is justified and is necessary to address the impact that the increased vehicular movements would have and to provide some mitigation against the unsustainable location of the site, outside of a town centre.
7.28 163 car parking spaces are currently available at the existing site. No additional parking is proposed as part of the current proposal. Appendix II of the Local Plan recommends a maximum parking provision of 1 space per bedroom plus additional spaces based upon the size of the dining, bar, conference and exhibition areas. The proposed extension would result in a total number of 120 bedrooms. Officers consider that the existing amount of parking provision at the site would be sufficient to provide for the resulting 120 bedrooms plus additional rooms that the hotel accommodates and that the proposed development does not conflict with the aims of Policy TR7.
Other Matters
7.29 The Herts Biological Records Centre have recommended that an assessment should be made in relation to the on-site trees to be removed and their potential for bat roosts and nesting birds and a survey for great crested newts should be conducted prior to the determination of the application.
7.30 Officers consider it to be reasonable to expect the recommended surveys to be conducted at the site prior to any approval of the current proposal and without such survey information consider this should form a reason for the refusal of the current application.
(b) 3/10/1401/LB
7.31 The determining issue in the case of the application for Listed Building Consent for the proposed extension (lpa. 3/10/1401/LB) is the impact that the development would have upon the historical and architectural character and appearance of the Grade II Listed Building.
7.32 The Conservation Officer has considered the impact that the size, scale, mass and design of the proposed extension in relation to the existing Listed Buildings at the site and in particular to North Lodge from which the development would extend. Officers are satisfied that the building has been carefully designed to reflect the prominent features within the adjacent building at the existing site. The Conservation Officer has stated that, in
Page 130 (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
assessing the physical impact on the historic fabric of the Grade II North Lodge, this is limited to a glazed link which will be attached to the existing projecting parapet gable. The main concern therefore is the manner in which the frame of the link will be attached to the historic building a matter which can be dealt with in more detail via condition.
7.33 The proposed glazed link that would join the proposed building to the existing North Lodge is of a modest size. Therefore, the impact that the proposed extension would have upon the historic fabric of the Listed Building that it would adjoin would be very limited. Officers consider that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact upon the existing Listed Buildings at the site and would not have a detrimental impact upon the special historical and architectural character and appearance of these heritage assets, in accordance with the aims of PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.
(c) 3/10/1543/LB
7.34 The determining issue in the case of the application for Listed Building Consent for the proposed extension (lpa. 3/10/1543/LB) is the impact that the development would have upon the historic fabric of the Grade II Listed Building.
7.35 The Conservation Officer’s comments in relation to the application for Listed Building Consent for the internal alterations to the existing building states that the building in question has limited historic significance and as such the proposals would have limited impact on the historic fabric and is therefore acceptable. Officers understand that the building in question was constructed in the 1960’s and replaced stable blocks. The internal walls that are proposed to be demolished are therefore not of any historic merit.
7.36 The internal alterations are proposed to enable the enlargement of the existing single rooms that the applicant claims they are experiencing difficulties in occupying. Officers understand that this need has occurred since the change in operation of the site for a hotel from a training centre since the original construction of this building.
7.37 Officers consider the proposed internal alterations to the Listed Building to be justified and do not consider that they would result in any damage to the historic fabric of the building. The proposal does not conflict with the aims of PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.
Page 131 (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
8.0 Conclusions
(a) 3/10/1396/FP
8.1 The proposed development constitues inappropriate development within the Green Belt and the ‘very special circumstances’ that the applicant has argued are not considered sufficient to outweigh the harm that the proposed development would have upon the openness of the Green Belt. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the aims of PPG2 and Policy GBC1.
8.2 Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that an adequate sequential assessment has been carried out and it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development is essential for the viability of the existing business. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the aims of PPS4.
8.3 Officers are not satisfied that the proposed replacement trees would be sufficient to mitigate against the loss of existing prominent and attractive trees at the site and the visual impact that the proposed building would have upon the registered historic garden. The loss of the existing trees would therefore have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the existing site and the setting of the registered historic garden, contrary to the aims of Policies ENV2, ENV11 and BH16.
8.4 The application lacks sufficient information regarding the presence of protected species to enable the Local Planning Authority to properly consider the planning merits of the application. The proposal would thereby be contrary to policy ENV16 and refsual is recommended for this reason.
8.5 The applicant has failed to commit towards the provision of a financial provision towards sustainable transport programs. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the provisions of policies TR1 and IMP1.
8.6 Having regard to the above considerations it is recommended that planning permission is refused for the reasons given at the head of this report.
(b) 3/10/1401/LB
8.7 The proposed extension to the existing Grade II Listed Building is considered to be acceptable and would not be detrimental to the historic and architectural character and appearance of the existing Listed Buildings at the site, in accordance with the aims of PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. Page 132 (a) 3/10/1396/FP, (b) 3/10/1401/LB, (c) 3/10/1543/LB
8.8 Having regard to the above considerations, it is recommended that Listed Building Consent is approved subject to the conditions at the head of this report.
(c) 3/10/1543/LB
8.9 The proposed internal alterations to the existing building are considered by Officers to be acceptable and would not be detrimental to the historic fabric of the Listed Building, in accordance with the aims of PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.
8.10 Having regard to the above considerations, it is recommended that Listed Building Consent is granted subject to the conditions at the head of this report.
Page 133 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 134 SITE
The Kennels Fanhams House
Shire House
The Fuller's Hanley Barn Cottage New Barn Harecroft Tylers Grove Danleys Fanhams Grange Buckney Cottage Gardiners The Clock Tower Meadow Cottage Portneys 2 Burleigh HouseThe Haven Glencairn Fanhams Swingles Cottage Gardens Gilpin Cottage
Home Farm 2
Cottages 3 1
Home Farm
4 5
Little Fanhams Fanhams Hall
3 to 4
The Lodge
1 The
2 Lodge
The Byre
The Coach House
The Tack The Old Jack's The Nurseries Cottage Old Kitchens
The Estate Office Great Willow Cottage Cozens
Great Cozens Barn
7
2 1 0
13
8 1
1
4 2
3
1
1
6
8 2 2 06 2 08 2 02 2 1 04
3 1 2 00
7
1 2 This copy has been produced specifically for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528
East Herts Council Address: Fanhams Hall Hotel, Fanhams Hall, Fanhams Hall Road, Ware, SG12 7PZ Wallfields Reference: 3/10/1396/FP Pegs Lane Scale: 1:5000 Hertford O.S Sheet: TL 3715 SG13 8EQ Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 29-September-2010 Page 135 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 136 Agenda Item 5d 5D 3/10/1495/FP – Fifteen caravan pitches with associated parking; extension to access road and construction of toilet and shower building incorporating booking-in office at Westmill Farm, Westmill Road, Westmill, Ware, Herts, SG12 0ES for DJ and DM Vigus
Date of Receipt: 17.08.2010 Type: Full - Minor
Parish: HERTFORD
Ward: HERTFORD BENGEO
RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. Three year time limit (1T121)
2. Landscape design proposals (4P124)
3. Landscape works implementation (4P133)
4. Landscape maintenance (4P173)
5. Hours of working – plant and machinery (6N053)
6. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to dispose of foul and surface water has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment, in accordance with ‘saved’ policies ENV18 and ENV20 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended), not more than 15 caravans may be stationed on the land that is the subject of this approval at any time. The caravans shall be occupied solely for holiday/leisure or touring purposes and not for permanent residential occupation. No individual caravan or individual person shall occupy the site for any period in excess of 3 months in any 12 month period.
Reason: To prevent the establishment of a permanent residential caravan site contrary to Metropolitan Green Belt policy and in accordance with ‘saved’ policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007. Page 137 3/10/1495/FP
8. Lighting details (2E272)
(149510FP.MC)
1.0 Background
1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract. It forms part of the Westmill Farm site, a working farm that has been extensively developed and diversified in recent years to offer a variety of uses, mostly related to recreational pursuits. The site lies just to the north-west of Ware within the Metropolitan Green Belt.
1.2 At present, the site has commercial space to let; an art studio and workshop; café/restaurant; function rooms; fishing lakes; a model car racing circuit; nine hole golf course; garden centre and shops. It is also the site of events such as a music festival, and offers outdoor pursuits such as archery, climbing and shooting.
1.3 The provision of 7 caravan pitches was included in the original 2001 planning application for the leisure activities at the farm. However, the applicants indicate that there has been an increased demand for pitches for caravan and camping use in recent years, even during the autumn and spring months. The pitches are used both for caravans and for tents. This is not considered to represent a material change of use that in itself requires planning permission.
1.4 The current proposal seeks planning permission for a mix of basic touring caravan pitches and facilitated pitches together with the necessary access tracks and a toilet/shower block. This would be on a previously undeveloped part of the farm. A new road would be required to link the pitches to the existing fishing lake access drive. There would be 15 pitches. They are intended for use by tourists visiting the area and/or by people using the site’s various leisure facilities.
1.5 The office/shower building would be a timber framed building located to the north-east of the field, just to the south of the “New House”. The applicants indicate that this location was chosen due to its proximity to existing site drainage and also to the existing access tracks within the farm, thereby making ingress and egress of touring caravans easier.
1.6 The applicants have acknowledged that this is a somewhat exposed position, especially when viewed from Crouchfields at Chapmore End (to the west of the site). However, they consider that the location of the development close to existing hedgerows, together with new planting Page 138proposed, would satisfactorily reduce its impact on the surrounding area. 3/10/1495/FP
1.7 The new access tracks are proposed to be constructed from concrete. Low level lighting is also proposed along an informal access track between the pitches and the new building.
1.8 A previous application for 30 new caravan pitches and the associated development was refused by the Committee in March of this year. The reasons for refusal related to the site lying within the Green Belt, and also the prominence of the development in the surrounding countryside.
2.0 Site History
2.1 As mentioned above, the site has an extensive history of planning applications dating back more than thirty years. There was a significant redevelopment of the site, following the granting of a planning permission in September 2001. It has since been the subject of numerous applications introducing new elements and diversifying the services offered to visitors. The most relevant planning history can be summarised as follows:-
• 3/90/1911/FP – Formation of fishing lake – Approved January 1991 • 3/93/1266/AD – Sign boards – Approved November 1993 • 3/97/0116/CM – Formation of two fishing lakes – Approved December 1997 • 3/00/0602/FP – Extension to shop – Refused July 2000 – Appeal dismissed February 2001 • 3/00/1203/FP – Redevelopment of site for model racing circuit, golf course, seven pitch caravan site and associated development – Approved September 2001 • 3/04/0898/FP – Change of use from clubhouse to mixed use with restaurant – Approved June 2004 • 3/04/1538/FP – Change of use to art and craft gallery with studio, workshop and shop (retrospective) – Approved September 2004 • 3/05/1829/FP – Change of use from model car racing to meeting/function room and retail – Approved August 2004 • 3/05/2467/FO – Use of retail unit for farmer’s market style shop – Approved March 2006 • 3/08/0050/FP – Extension to function rooms – Approved March 2008 • E/09/0463/B – Twelve caravans on site – Complied November 2009 • E/09/0501/B – Extended residence of caravan site – No breach December 2009 • 3/09/2018/FP – Thirty caravan pitches with associated parking, extension to access road and construction of office/shower building – Refused March 2010
Page 139 3/10/1495/FP
• 3/10/0065/FP – Rope and zip-line course involving change of use of land from agriculture to assembly and leisure. Construction of single storey timber office and car park – Approved March 2010
2.2 Among the conditions placed on the 2001 permission was a time limit restriction requiring that no person or caravan occupy the site for more than 3 months. This has also been included within this application.
3.0 Consultation Responses
3.1 The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal provided that a scheme to dispose of foul and surface water is secured by way of a planning condition.
3.2 The Council’s Environmental Health unit has recommendedst st conditions relating to a maximum period of opening in a year (1 March – 31 October) to prevent permanent residential use of the site and to limit the time in which work is carried out on site. Officers have also expressed concerns not specific to planning that have been forwarded to the applicant for their information.
3.3 The Council’s Landscape Officer has been consulted on the application. Their comments will be reported to the Committee once received.
3.4 County Highways have no objection to the proposal.
4.0 Town and Parish Council Representations
4.1 Hertford Town Council had no objections, but asked that Ware Town Council and Bengeo Rural Parish Council be consulted as well.
4.2 Ware Town Council have not commented at the time of writing this report.
4.3 Bengeo Rural Parish Council have not commented at the time of writing this report.
4.4 Any additional representations will be reported to the Committee upon their receipt.
5.0 Other Representations
5.1 The applications have been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.
Page 140 3/10/1495/FP
5.2 Three letters have been received from residents in River Court to the west of the site, and in Rib Vale, Hertford to the south of the site. The following objections have been raised:
• Potential for increased noise and disturbance, in addition to that already experienced from the site. Residents have claimed that the noise generated on site already causes disturbance, including to residents of Rib Vale some 2 kilometres from the application site. • Overdevelopment of the site, with this Green Belt site increasingly becoming a leisure destination akin to a ‘mini Alton Towers’. • Inappropriate development within the Green Belt detrimental to the open and rural character of the site.
6.0 Policy
6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:-
GBC1 Appropriate Development in the Green Belt GBC8 Rural Diversification ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping LRC5 Countryside Recreation LRC10 Tourism
6.2 In addition to the above it is considered that Planning Policy Guidance 2 – Green Belts and Planning Policy Statement 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas are material considerations for this application.
7.0 Considerations
7.1 The determining issues in this case relate to the appropriateness of the proposed development within the Metropolitan Green Belt, the impact of the development on the openness, character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, whether the proposal would constitute overdevelopment of the site and whether the level of disturbance generated by the proposal would be unacceptable.
Principle of development in the Green Belt
7.2 The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt wherein planning permission will not be granted for development, except in certain specified circumstances. Policy GBC1 of the Local Plan indicates that changes of use of land within the Green Belt will be inappropriate unless they maintain Page 141 3/10/1495/FP
openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. New buildings in the Green Belt will also only be permitted for purposes specified in that policy, which closely follows Government guidance set out in PPG2. One of the purposes identified in the policy as being appropriate in the Green Belt is for buildings which are required for essential small scale facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation.
7.3 In this case, however, Officers consider that the proposed caravan pitches would have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt and would not represent essential small scale facilities as required by policy GBC1.
7.4 The proposed shower/office building would be both essential to the development and small scale, but is not required for an outdoor recreation activity, and is therefore also not in accordance with policy GBC1.
7.5 As such, the proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, in accordance with the advice in PPG2, planning permission should not therefore be granted unless there are very special circumstances which would outweigh the harm caused by inappropriateness and any other harm – such as the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
7.6 The proposed development represents a significant reduction in scale from the previously refused proposal. The number of pitches proposed has been reduced by 50%. In addition to this, the location of the pitches, layout and extent of the landscaping and the proposed road materials have been revised in line with the Landscape Officer’s comments on the previous proposal.
7.7 Officers consider that the development would have a substantially smaller visual impact than the previous proposal. The extent of landscaping proposed would provide extensive screening of the pitches and the new building. This would significantly soften the visual impact of the development.
7.8 Policy LRC10 of the Local Plan states that within the Green Belt the Council will encourage suitable tourism proposals in appropriate locations. In addition, the Council will give favourable consideration to suitable proposals for visitor accommodation within the District. Policy LRC5 states that the Council will permit suitable development within the Green Belt where it would provide opportunities for increasing public access to countryside recreation. Officers considered that the previous proposal did not meet the criteria, comprising an overdevelopment of this Green Belt site.
Page 142 3/10/1495/FP
7.9 The applicants have compiled extensive information in support of the application. At a time when interest in caravan and camping holidays is increasing rapidly, Hertfordshire has a limited number of sites considering the proximity to London and Cambridge. The site is close to Hertford and Ware with links to the wider area, and has diversified in the last ten years to provide a number of attractions on-site for potential visitors.
7.10 An indication of local demand are the 250 pitches available at the Balls Park campsite in Hertford, and this facility is open all year.
7.11 The proposed development has been substantially revised from the previously refused submission. The impact on the openness and rural character of the Green Belt would be limited to an acceptable level, considering the benefits to be gained from the proposal. The development would represent necessary improvements to tourism opportunities in the District. Officers consider that these represent very special circumstances that outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. In principle, therefore, officers consider that the proposal in its revised form is acceptable.
Layout and visual impact
7.12 The development has been significantly revised from the previously refused scheme. The number of pitches has been reduced, and the majority of the development would now be located in the south corner of the site, at the lowest point within the field.
7.13 In addition, the development would feature extensive additional landscaping designed to screen the pitches and new building from view from the surrounding area. The office/shower building would be screened by the planting of mixed species hedgerows. The pitches would be screened by the planting of hedgerows and trees.
7.14 Officers consider that the development would have some impact on the character of the site. Westmill Farm has historically been an open, rural site, and this would be part of the ongoing diversification that has taken place over the last decade or so. However, the development would be limited in area, mainly concentrated to a site with an area of approximately 0.5 hectares. Although the development would be in a relatively prominent location, the site as a whole is approximately 40 hectares in area. The majority of the site would remain as open land.
7.15 Officers consider that, given the reduction in scale of the proposed site and the extensive landscaping planned, the visual impact of the development would be acceptable in accordance with policies ENV2 and GBC1 of the Local Plan. Page 143 3/10/1495/FP
Overdevelopment
7.16 The development would result in an increase from 7 to 15 pitches at the site. Westmill Farm has been the subject of extensive development over the last decade as the site has been redeveloped to provide a number of commercial and leisure facilities, including a restaurant, model car racing circuit, golf course and a variety of other uses. Most recently permission was granted for an elevated ropes course in the east of the site.
7.17 The development has resulted in a thriving local business that concentrates a number of recreational activities in a single location. The activities available on site include those noted above, as well as shops, fishing, shooting and archery.
7.18 The site would remain predominantly rural in character, although it is clear from neighbour representations that the character of the site has been somewhat affected by the ongoing development. However, the proposed works would involve the modest intensification of an existing use rather than the introduction of a new use to the site. As considered above, the visual impact of the development would be relatively limited. The benefits from increasing the availability of tourist accommodation in the District are considered by officers to justify the increased development on the site.
7.19 The actual extent of development involved would be limited as it would
amount to the laying down of two new2 stretches of concrete road and a single new building of around 140m . Officers therefore conclude that the proposed works do not in themselves or with the other approved works at the Westmill Farm site constitute overdevelopment.
Noise disturbance to neighbouring occupiers
7.20 The site is in a relatively isolated location, approximately 350m from the nearest neighbouring property. However, the site is relatively open and representations received from residents make it clear that disturbance does occur as a result of the activities occurring on the site.
7.21 The potential for noise disturbance from the proposed development arises from several sources. The vehicle movements associated with the pitches can cause disturbance, although officers would expect these to be relatively limited in duration and mainly restricted to the arrival and departure of the caravans on site. The occupation of the pitches would be likely to result in some disturbance. Given the openness of the site, the noise created by the use of the pitches would be likely to carry for some distance. Finally, the use of the facilities on site would be likely to be increased as a result of the additional occupancy of the site. Page 144 3/10/1495/FP
7.22 The various activities on site are not limited to a set number of participants at any given time. Even without an increase in residents on site, the activities could be used by any number of visitors. It is inevitable that the activities on the site will be busier at some times more than others, and that the resultant levels of disturbance will vary. Many of the activities are sited a considerable distance from neighbouring residents, reducing the impact.
7.23 The noise created by the occupation of the pitches would be concentrated on the 15 pitches and the immediate surrounding area. This area is approximately 400m from the nearest neighbouring property. Officers consider that the level of disturbance at this degree of separation would be limited. It is noted that Environmental Health have not raised any concerns about the proximity of the site to neighbouring occupiers on this ground.
7.24 With regard to the noise generated by the moving of vehicles around the site officers consider that such disturbance is intermittent and generally of limited duration. The separation from the site to neighbouring residents should again ensure that the development does not result in an undue adverse impact.
7.25 Officers accept that the increase in the number of pitches is likely to result in some increased disturbance to local residents. However, officers consider that the level of disturbance would be acceptable in accordance with policy ENV1 of the Local Plan, and therefore would not justify a refusal of permission.
Other
7.26 Environmental Health officers have recommended that a condition be placed on the approval of this application to limit the opening period of the site from March to October.
7.27 However, the 7 pitches that already have permission are not restricted in this manner and officers are not satisfied that such a condition is necessary or appropriate in this case. Rather, a condition as was attached to the earlier permission to require that no person or caravan have a stay of greater than three months, is considered appropriate and necessary to meet the relevant tests of the circular. This condition is included with this recommendation, with the wording updated for greater precision.
Page 145 3/10/1495/FP
8.0 Conclusion
8.1 The proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, officers consider that the applicant has shown that very special circumstances exist that are sufficient to overcome the in principle objection to the proposal.
8.2 Officers feel that the development would have a limited impact on the character of the site, and the amenities of neighbouring residents. It would not result an overdevelopment of the site, either on its own or when considered together with the preceding development of the site.
8.3 For these reasons it is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions suggested above.
Page 146 The Well House
Green Banks
Paynes Hall
The Mill Cottage
D D D ADADAD OAOAOA RO RO RDOD D L L LA A A L L RLO RO RO I LI LI L M ML ML RL R R S SI SLI LI L E EMEIML IML IL The Mill D DSDMSMSM A AEAE E D DSDS S AWWAEAE E D D D AWWA A WW
Trout Farm Trout Farm
10
8
Westmill Westmill Westmill Cottages Cottage House
SITE El Sub Sta
Westmill Lodge Hopper
Hopper
AAA AA A6 6 6 6 60 602022 002022
The New House
A A A A A60 A60 60 A A60 A602 602 2 60 602 602 2 2 2 2
WWW E E E WWSWTSTST WWESWESEMSMM E ETEMTIMLTIMLIL STSTSI TLI IL L MMLLMLRLLOLRORO ILLIL ILRL LR ARA A R OR ORDOD D OAODAODAD ADADAD
A A A A 6A 6A 6 0 0 0 A 6A 6A 6 020202 6 6 6 020202 2 2 2
Westmill Farm
This copy has been produced specifically for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528
East Herts Council Address: Westmill Farm, Westmill Road, Westmill, Ware, SG12 0ES Wallfields Reference: 3/10/1495/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:5000 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL 3315 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 04-October-2010 Page 147 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 148 Agenda Item 5e 5E 3/10/1454/FP - Change of use of meadow to domestic garden land and retention of two outbuildings (retrospective) at Northleys, High Street, Much Hadham, SG10 6DB for Mr Jeffcoate
Date of Receipt: 12.08.2010 Type: Full – Minor
Parish: MUCH HADHAM
Ward: MUCH HADHAM
RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-
1. Three year time limit (1T121)
2. Within three months of the grant of permission a landscape plan for the western boundary of the application site relating to the change of use of the land shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape plan shall include planting plans, written specifications and schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and the proposed numbers and densities. The landscape plan shall be implemented within the next available planting season and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To provide an appropriate landscaping and boundary treatment in accordance with policy ENV2 and ENV7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
3. Within three months of the grant of permission, a colour sample of the boarding for buildings one and two shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority. The buildings shall thereafter be finished externally in that approved colour.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity of the site, in accordance with policy GBC3 and ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan second Review April 2007.
4. The alterations hereby permitted to the existing outbuildings (buildings one and two), as shown on plan reference 2555-103, shall be implemented in accordance with that plan within three months of the date of this decision.
Reason: To enhance the existing impact of the development on the rural character and appearance of the site, in accordance with policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan April 2007, and to avoid possible enforcement proceedings in respect of the existing unauthorised outbuildings. Page 149 3/10/1454/FP
5. Withdrawal of PD (Part 1 Class E)(2E223) – Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order), 1995 the provision within the extension of the curtilage of the dwelling hereby permitted of any building, enclosure or swimming pool as described in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Order shall not be undertaken without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the Local Planning Authority retains control over any future development as specified in the condition in the interests of amenity.
Directives
1. Other legislation (01OL1)
Summary of Reasons for Decision The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular saved policies GBC3, BH1, BH6, ENV1, ENV7 and Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that permission should be granted.
(145410FP.MP)
1.0 Background
1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS map. The location of the outbuildings and the area of land the subject to this application is to the west of the existing dwellings, Northleys and Northleys Cottage.
1.2 Those buildings are listed and have been the subject of a significant level of development works recently, involving renovation works to the buildings, extensions, outbuildings and various landscape works in the gardens immediately surrounding the dwellings.
1.3 This application seeks retrospective consent for an outbuilding within the garden space to the west of the buildings and the change of use of a parcel of land to the west of the existing tennis court and the provision of a building within that parcel of land. 2.0 Site History
2.1 There is no planning history relating to the application sites themselves. However, as is outlined above, there is planning history relating to the Page 150 3/10/1454/FP
buildings and garden space within which the application site is located, which can be summarised as follows:-
• 3/06/0813/FP and 3/06/0814/LB: New vehicular access from garden into High Street (Approved with conditions) • 3/08/1801/FP and 3/08/1802/LB: Erection of a new detached garage/store. New gable end to roof. Construction of a rear canopy. Construction of a retaining wall incorporating steps to rear of property. Minor internal alterations (Approved with conditions) • 3/10/0997/FP and 3/10/0998/LB: extensions to NorthLeys Cottage, enclosing open courtyard (Approved with conditions)
2.2 In addition, Members should note that, at the time of writing this report there are currently undetermined planning applications for the provision of a swimming pool and pool building and a garage building to serve Northleys Cottage, within LPA references 3/10/1433/FP and 3/10/1434/FP.
3.0 Consultation Responses
3.1 The Conservation Officer has recommended approval of the application. The Officer comments that the location of the two outbuildings and their function and proposed design is considered to be acceptable. The Conservation Officers does however suggest that the advice offered at pre- application stage, that the finish of the buildings should compliment the rural setting, will help reduce the impact on the wider setting of the listed buildings .
3.2 The Historic Environment Unit comments that the application proposals are unlikely to have an impact upon significant heritage assets.
4.0 Parish Council Representations
4.1 Much Hadham Parish Council do not object to the retention of the two outbuildings, subject to a planning condition restricting their use. However, they do object to the extension of the residential curtilage, on the grounds of insufficient justification.
5.0 Other Representations
5.1 The applications have been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.
5.2 No letters of representation have been received .
Page 151 3/10/1454/FP
6.0 Policy
6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:-
GBC3 Appropriate Development in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV7 Extension of Curtilage of a Residential Property BH1 Archaeology and New Development BH6 New Developments in Conservation Areas
6.2 In addition, the following National policy guidance is relevant:-
PPS5 Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment
7.0 Considerations
7.1 Within this application there are two main planning matters to be considered:-
• The acceptability of the extension of the residential curtilage having regard to policy ENV7; • The acceptability of the retention of the existing outbuildings, having regard to the principle of development and the impact on the character and appearance of the rural area and the setting of the listed buildings and Conservation Area.
Change of use of land
7.2 This element of the proposed development relates to the change of use of the land to the west of the existing tennis courts. This element has been the subject of pre-application advice, which is referred to in the Conservation Officers consultation response and the Design and Access Statement (DAS). Officers have previously advised that it is considered that, over the passage of time, the use of the land to the west of the site encompassing the tennis court and land to the east of that court appears to have been used as part of the residential use of the dwelling, Northleys. In this respect, planning permission is not required for the change of use of that land. However, the land to the west of the tennis court (as outlined in red on plan reference 2555-101) has not been in residential use for any significant period of time and does not therefore benefit from planning permission, hence the submission of this retrospective application for an extension to the residential curtilage.
Page 152 3/10/1454/FP
Policy ENV7
7.3 Extensions to the residential curtilage of a dwelling will be assessed against the criteria set out in policy ENV7 of the Local Plan. Policy ENV7 allows for the extension of residential curtilages into the countryside provided thatappropriate landscaping and boundary treatment is agreed; no effect on significant archaeological or ecological sites would occur; and that the character or appearance of the local landscape would not be impaired.
7.4 The application site forms an extension to the existing tennis court and vegetable garden beyond – which represents a residential use, in my opinion. Those areas are surrounded by black metal fencing, which demark those spaces from the other spaces of the site to the north and west. Officers acknowledge the comments from the Parish Council that it is possible to view the site from the lane to the north; however it is considered that such views of the site are limited, and the perception of the application site, is that it is not readily visible or seen within the context of the surrounding rural area.
7.5 The application site for the change of use and adjoining tennis court and vegetable garden have only recently been implemented, and there is little information regarding how those areas are proposed to be landscaped. However, taking into account the significant soft and hard landscaping the applicant has implemented to the garden space immediately behind Northleys, it is reasonable to assume that additional soft landscaping is proposed at the application site also. Notwithstanding the comments made in the DAS and, having regard to the requirements of Policy ENV7, Officers consider that some form of soft landscaping along the western boundary of the application site will assist in creating a buffer between the edge of the land used for residential purposes and the more rural aspect to the west. The existing boundary treatment – the black metal fencing, does not, in Officers opinion, satisfy such requirements or the requirements of policy 7 or ENV2 and it is necessary therefore for such matters to be agreed through the planning condition recommended at the commencement of this report. Subject to appropriate landscaping, Officers are of the opinion that the proposal will not result in significant harm to the landscape character of the area or the Conservation Area.
7.6 With regards to criteria c) of policy ENV7, having regard to the comments from the Historic Environment Unit, Officers are of the opinion that this element would be met, and the proposal would not result in a significant impact on heritage assets.
Page 153 3/10/1454/FP
7.7 Criteria II) of policy ENV7 requires that consideration is given to the withdrawal of permitted development rights. Taking into account the potential harm that a significantly sized building or structure may have on the openness and rural character of the application site, it is considered to be necessary and reasonable for such development to be subject to a detailed planning application, in which the full impact of such development can be properly considered. In this respect Officers recommend a planning condition restricting Class E permitted development rights on this part of the site.
Retention of outbuildings
7.8 Two buildings have been constructed on the site without the benefit of planning permission. Building one is of a footprint of 12 square metres and is a ‘potting shed’ used in association with the ‘vegetable garden’, in which the building is located. Building two is larger, at 24 square metres and is located further to the west, within the red outline for the change of use of the land to residential garden space. Building two is indicated on the plans for the provision of a changing room (for the tennis courts) and a garden machinery store. Both buildings are boarded with clay peg tiled roofs at a maximum height of 3.7 metres.
7.9 With regards to the principle of development involving those outbuildings, they are located outside the category one village, accordingly, the planning considerations relate to the requirements of policy GBC3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007. The applicant considers that the outbuildings fall within criteria b) of policy GBC3 – essential small scale facilities for outdoor sport and recreation. Officers are of the opinion that, with regards to building one, the provision of a potting shed would represent such small scale facilities for outdoor recreation. Further, with regards to the changing facilities of building two, this element also would accord with that element of the policy. However, Officers are concerned that the garden machinery element of building two would not fall within the scope of policy GBC3 and would thus represent a departure from the Local Plan. This is the reason for the application being reported to the Development Control Committee.
7.10 With regards to those buildings, the main planning consideration relates to whether the design of those buildings is appropriate to the context of the site and rural locality.
Page 154 3/10/1454/FP
Impact on character and appearance
7.11 The buildings have been the subject of pre-application discussions, during which concern was raised with regards to the appearance and detailed design of the buildings. As shown in plan references, 2555-102a, the buildings in their present form on site appear too fussy and the colour of the buildings appears too harsh in the rural setting. The applicant has sought to address those concerns, and the proposed amendments to the building (as shown on plan reference 2555-103) appear more simple and reflective of a rural setting. The scale and mass of the buildings has not altered, but the detailed appearance, such as the fascias has been amended to provide a more simple profiled building, reflective of the rural setting. In this respect, Officers are of the opinion that, subject to the amendments to the buildings being implemented (which can be required through a planning condition which, having regard to the above considerations, is necessary) and appropriate colour changes for the buildings that the proposed amendments to the buildings will not result in a significant impact on the open rural character of the site, or the Conservation Area.
7.12 The applicant has proposed the provision of a dark green paint, to replace the existing colour. Without details of that specific colour it is difficult to comment on the acceptability of such a colour – in any event, Officers consider that a dark brown or black would be more appropriate. Having regard to the above considerations, Officers therefore consider it reasonable and necessary for a planning condition to be attached to the grant of permission in respect of this issue.
Impact on setting of listed building
7.13 Having regard to the above considerations and, taking into account the distance between the buildings and land in question, there is not considered to be a significantly detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building. There will be a neutral impact, in Officers opinion.
Neighbour amenity
7.14 In neighbour amenity terms, taking into account the siting of the application site in relation to neighbouring properties, Officers do not consider that there will be a significant impact.
8.0 Conclusion
8.1 The proposed development involving the extension of the residential curtilage is considered to accord with policy ENV7 of the Local Plan, subject to appropriate boundary treatment and removal of permitted developmentPage 155 3/10/1454/FP
rights. The outbuildings are also considered to be acceptable, subject to the amendments to those buildings being implemented, as required in the recommended conditions. The proposed alterations to the buildings and the change of use of the land are not considered to result in a significantly detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the Much Hadham Conservation Area or the setting of the listed building. As such, they accord with policy BH6 and PPS5 and Officers therefore recommend that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.
Page 156 Gardners Cottage Lordship Stables
Westfield House The Lordship SITE
111000000444 BBB 1 11000000444 Lordship Cottage
Church End
3 1
El Sub Sta
Fletchers Homestall
North Leys
North Leys Cottage The Red Lion
Shelter Saddlers
The Bank House The Coach House
Westbury
House Dunam Folly 1
Glebe Cottages 2 Manor House Woodham Weathervane House Cottage Wickham Cottage Manor Sheiling Lewes Manor Cottage St Andrew's Cottage
Old Cobblers Co urt House The Cottage Motts Cott
The Old Drapery Careless Cottage
Crown Crown House House Thurgoods
The Rectory
T T T
T T T T T T Newtons E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
R R R
R R R R R R Batemans
T T T Lowfield
T T T
T T T
S S S
S S S
The Gaytons S S S
H H H
H H H H H H The Old House
G G G
G G G I I I G G G I I I
I I I
H H H
H H H
H H H
G re en S h Tudor C u ott tte
rs 7
The 6 2 1 2 Square Ha
4 ll Co The Old 1 ttages Police House
4
5
5
5
2
5 This copy has been produced specifically for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528
East Herts Council Address: Land Rear of, Northleys, High Street, Much Hadham, SG10 6DB Wallfields Reference: 3/10/1454/FP Pegs Lane Scale: 1:2500 Hertford O.S Sheet: TL 4219 SG13 8EQ Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 30-September-2010 Page 157 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 158 Agenda Item 5f 5F 3/10/1285/FP - Single storey side extension, provision of three canopies and ramp at St. Andrews Primary School, Tower Hill, Much Hadham, SG10 6DL for St. Andrews Primary School
Date of Receipt: 23.07.2010 Type: Full – Minor
Parish: MUCH HADHAM
Ward: MUCH HADHAM
RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-
1. Three year time limit (1T12)
2. Matching Materials (2E13)
3. Materials of construction for ramp (2E113) delete ‘building’ and replace with ‘ramp’.
Directives
1. Other Legislation (01OL)
Summary of Reasons for Decision The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the saved policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular policies GBC3, ENV1, BH1, BH6 and particular Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies and the limited harm to the character, appearance or openness of this rural area is that permission should be granted.
(128510FP.FM)
1.0 Background
1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract.
1.2 St. Andrews Primary School is divided into two separate buildings. The first, older building is located within the Category I Village of Much Hadham, is Grade II Listed and fronts onto the back edge of the pavement. Sited 15metres to the east of this building is the second, newer school building which is set approximately 3metres lower than the older school building. It is located outside of the Category 1Page Village 159 of 3/10/1285/FP
Much Hadham and as such is located within the Rural Area beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt. The whole site comprises an area of approximately 2 acres and is sited within the Much Hadham Conservation Area. The building is part single, part two storey and the site benefits from a large curtilage with tennis/netball courts.
1.3 This application proposes the erection of a single storey extension and a canopy to the north of the building. It is also proposed to erect a glazed canopy along the eastern elevation of the building and a canopy with a new bay window in the west elevation. The three open canopies will provide additional outside teaching and soft play areas. The proposal also involves the construction of a ramp, providing disabled access between the two school buildings.
1.4 The proposed single storey side extension would reach a maximum height2 of 4metres with a flat roof, would have an approximate floor area of 43m and would provide additional internal space for the nursery and reception classrooms. To the west of the extension it is proposed to erect a canopy, 2.9metres in height, projecting 7.8metres from the northern elevation of the building. This would be used as a soft play area. It is also proposed to erect a second canopy on the western elevation of the building which
would reach a maximum2 height of 2.8metres with a flat roof, would have a floor area of 64m and would be used as an additional outside teaching area. The third open canopy would be sited along the eastern elevation of the building and would have a glazed mono-pitched roof, projecting 2.8metres from the existing building line.
1.5 The proposal also involves the construction of a ramp between the two school buildings to provide disabled access - the only existing access between the school sites is by way of several sets of steep steps. Currently, land levels slope steeply down from Tower Hill to Oudle Lane and the school building within this application is sited approximately 3metres below the original school building. The proposed ramp would form a backwards ‘S’ shape.
1.6 It should be noted that due to the age of the building (built after 1947), it is not curtilage listed. The proposals therefore do not require listed building consent.
2.0 Site History
2.1 In 1968 within LPA reference 3/68/1314/FP, planning permission was granted for the construction of a new school building to provide five additional classrooms for St. Andrews Primary School. Page 160 3/10/1285/FP
3.0 Consultation Responses
3.1 The Council’s Conservation Officer recommends approval of the application and has commented that the proposal would not have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would preserve the historic setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed building.
4.0 Parish Council Representations
4.1 Much Hadham Parish Council raised no objections to this proposal.
5.0 Other Representations
5.1 The applications have been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.
5.2 No letters of representation have been received.
6.0 Policy
6.1 The relevant Local Plan policies in these applications include the following:-
GBC3 Appropriate Development in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality BH1 Areas of Archaeological Significance BH6 New Developments in Conservation Areas
In addition to the above it is considered that Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment forms a material consideration in the determination of these applications.
7.0 Considerations
7.1 The main considerations in this instance are the impact of the proposal on the character, appearance and openness of the rural area; the impact upon the character and appearance of the existing building; the impact of the proposal upon the historic setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed Building; the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers.
Page 161 3/10/1285/FP
Principle of Development
7.2 As outlined earlier in this report, the proposed single storey extension, ramp and canopies are proposed to be sited outside of the Category 1 Village boundary and within the Rural Area beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt wherein inappropriate development will not be permitted. Policy GBC3 lists development which is classed as appropriate; however this does not include extensions to existing schools. Special circumstances must therefore be demonstrated that clearly outweigh the harm caused by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm.
7.3 In this case the applicant has outlined within the design and access statement that the proposed extension and open canopies will improve the learning experience for pupils and teachers at the school; will create a securer environment for the pupils and will create much needed additional classroom accommodation. Officers also note that the proposal will allow improved disabled access with the provision of an access ramp for disabled people.
7.4 The proposed extension and canopies to the school building increase the footprint marginally and will have a limited impact upon the Rural Area. Therefore, on the basis of the information submitted and in particular the need for accommodation as outlined above, Officers consider that special circumstances exist to outweigh Rural Area policy in this instance.
Scale and design
7.5 Taking into account the modest size and scale of the proposal, the appropriate siting of the extension and the canopies and, taking into account the size of the existing school building, Officers consider that the development will not result in a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the existing building and would not lead to a major increase in the developed proportion of the site. In terms of design it is considered that the proposals are of a high standard of design and complement the existing building.
7.6 Although the proposed single storey extension and the canopies to the north and east elevations will be partly visible from Oudle Lane, taking into account that the canopy sited nearest to Oudle Lane would retain some 70metres to the highway, and the size, scale and design of the proposal, it is considered that the proposed extension would not appear unduly prominent within the surrounding street scene or impact upon the openness and rural character of the Rural Area beyond the Metropolitan Page 162Green Belt. Officers also note that due to the differences in levels, the 3/10/1285/FP
proposed extension, ramp and canopies will not be visible from Tower Hill.
The impact of the proposal on the setting of the adjacent Listed Building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
7.7 With regards to the impact of the proposal on the setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed Building and the character and appearance of the Much Hadham Conservation Area, the Council’s Conservation Officer has raised no objections to the proposal. Taking the above considerations into account, it is considered that the proposed extension, ramp and canopies would preserve the setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed building to the west of the site and would not have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the Much Hadham Conservation Area. The proposal therefore accords with Policy BH6 of the Local Plan and Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.
The impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers
7.8 Turning to the impact upon neighbour amenity, the proposed development is sited some distance from nearby residential properties and therefore the proposal would not result in any impact on the occupiers of such properties.
8.0 Conclusion
8.1 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed development would not be detrimental to the openness or rural character of the surrounding Rural Area; the character and appearance of the existing building or the Conservation Area; the amenities of neighbouring property or the historic setting of the adjacent Grade II listed building.
8.2 It is therefore considered that there are special circumstances in this case to allow permission to be granted contrary to Policy GBC3 of the East Herts Local Plan and it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions which are outlined at the head of the report.
Page 163 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 164 T D D D D D D D D D
U U U U U U U U U k
7 r
O O O O O O O O O
a
P
8
0
1 Blakes
Front Lodge Park House Court End
Oudle House High Oaks
T T T T T T T T T
O O O O O O O O O
W W W W W W W W W 's E E E E E E E E E t r
R R R R R R R R R Brocketts e
b
H H H H H H H H H u
I I I Gella I I I I I I h
L L L L L L L L L c Oak Tree House
L L L L L L L L L S Much Hadham Meadow Bank Primary School
B B B
B B B
B B B
1 1 1
1 1 1
Old 1 1 1
0 0 0
0 0 0 School 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
4 4 4
4 4 4 House 4 4 4
B B B B B B B B B
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St Andrew's
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 C of E
1 Primary School
2 School House Gardens and Nursery
8
1 Almshouses SITE
Pavilion
The Barn
LLL LLL LLL School LLL LLL LLL I I I I I I I I I
HHH HHH HHH
RRR RRR RRR
EEE EEE EEE
WWW WWW WWW
OOO OOO OOO Elm TTT This copy has been produced specificallyTTT for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528
East Herts Council Address: St Andrews Primary School, Tower Hill, Much Hadham, SG10 6BZ Wallfields Reference: 3/10/1285/FP Pegs Lane Scale: 1:2500 Hertford O.S Sheet: TL 4218/4219 SG13 8EQ Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 29-September-2010 Page 165 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 166 Agenda Item 5g 5G 3/10/1074/FP – Single storey rear extension at 74 Pishiobury Drive, Sawbridgeworth, CM21 0AF for Mr and Mrs Steven Barrett.
Date of Receipt: 11.08.2010 Type: Full – Other
Parish: SAWBRIDGEWORTH
Ward: SAWBRIDGEWORTH
RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-
1. Three year time limit (1T12)
2. Materials of construction (2E11)
Summary of Reasons for Decision The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the saved policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007), and in particular policies GBC1, ENV1, ENV5, ENV6, ENV19 and BH16. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies and the resultant limited impact on the openness of the Green Belt is that permission should be granted.
(107410FP.LD)
1.0 Background
1.1 The application site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt within the settlement of Sawbridgeworth as shown on the attached OS extract.
1.2 The application property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling, situated along the private road of Pishiobury Drive. The property benefits from an existing single storey rear conservatory and large rear garden. In addition, there is off-street parking for 3 to 4 vehicles at the front of the site.
1.3 The proposal is for a single storey rear extension. The proposed extension would be ‘L’ shaped and would be 10.6 metres wide, 3.7 metres in height to the ridge of the roof and 5.7 metres in depth at its maximum. It should be noted that the proposed extension would replace an existing rear conservatory which appears to be in a poor state of repair.
Page 167 3/10/1074/FP
2.0 Site History
2.1 Planning permission was granted for a two storey side extension (3/87/1307/FP) and later a single storey rear conservatory (3/05/0753/FP) however, the rear conservatory was not implemented and the permission has since expired. A subsequent application for a rear conservatory at 12.6 metres wide, 3.5 metres in height and 7.1 metres in depth (3/08/1838/FP) was then refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed extension by reason of its size, scale and design is out of keeping with and detrimental to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. If permitted the proposal would be contrary to Policies ENV1 and ENV5 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
2. The proposed extension by reason of its size and siting would have a detrimental effect upon the amenities of the adjoining property, by reason of its overbearing impact, and would thereby be contrary to policy ENV5 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
3.0 Consultation Responses
3.1 The County Archaeology Unit considers that the proposal in this instance is unlikely to have any impact upon significant heritage assets.
4.0 Town Council Representations
4.1 Sawbridgeworth Town Council raised no objections.
5.0 Other Representations
5.1 The application has been advertised by way of site notice and neighbour notification.
5.2 No letters of representation have been received.
6.0 Policy
6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:-
GBC1 Appropriate Development in the Green Belt ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV5 Extensions to Dwellings Page 168 3/10/1074/FP
ENV6 Extensions to Dwellings – Criteria ENV19 Development in Areas Liable to Flood BH16 Historic Parks and Gardens
7.0 Considerations
7.1 The key considerations in the determination of this planning application are as follows:
• The principle of development within the Green Belt and the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area; • Neighbouring Amenity; • Other Matters.
Principle of development and the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area.
7.2 The application site is located within the Green Belt, wherein limited extensions and alterations to dwellings will be permitted provided that an extension to a dwelling or the erection of outbuildings will be of a scale and size that would either by itself, or cumulatively with other extensions, not disproportionately alter the size of the original dwelling nor intrude into the openness or rural qualities of the surrounding area, in accordance with Policies GBC1 and ENV5.
7.3 It has been calculated that the floor area of the original dwelling was approximately 105 square metres (sq.m). However, the previously approved two storey side extension has effectively doubled the size of the original dwelling, resulting in an increase in the floor area of the dwelling by over 100 per cent. The extension now proposed, some 44.3 sq.m, would result in a further increase in the size of the original dwelling, forming a departure from Policies GBC1 and ENV5 the Local Plan.
7.4 As mentioned above, planning permission was previously granted for a rear extension (3/05/0753/FP) of a similar size and design to the current proposal. However, this scheme was not implemented and has since expired. It should also be noted that the proposed extension would enable the replacement of the existing conservatory, which appears to be in a poor state of repair. This existing conservatory has a floor area of approximately 25 sq.m, therefore as a result of the replacement extension the overall increase in the floor area of the dwelling would be approximately 19.3 sq.m, which, it is considered, would not in itself disproportionately alter the size of the original dwelling. Page 169 3/10/1074/FP
7.5 It is considered that the proposed ‘L’ shaped rear extension would be modest in size and limited in height. Moreover, the proposed extension would be a lightweight glazed structure, which it is considered would be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and would not be unduly prominent nor intrude into the openness of the surrounding Green Belt.
7.6 It is therefore considered that the limited increase in the floor area of the existing dwelling proposed by this application, coupled with the replacement of an existing conservatory and the limited impact of the extensions on the openness of the Green Belt, would constitute very special circumstances to outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness in the Green Belt.
Neighbouring Amenity
7.7 Turning to the impact of the proposal on the amenities of adjoining neighbouring occupiers, it has been noted that the proposed extension would be set in 3.6 metres from the adjoining dwelling at No. 76 Pishiobury Drive. Furthermore, the proposed extension would be set away from the adjacent neighbouring dwelling at No. 72 Pishiobury Drive by 2.5 metres and limited to 3.5 metres in depth. Having regard to the low key structure, its limited depth and spacing at the boundary, it is considered that the proposed extension would not result in any unacceptable impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers.
Other Matters
7.8 It has been noted that the application site is located within a designated Flood Zone 2 whereby the LPA is required to refer to the Environment Agency’s standing advice. Having regard to this guidance, it is considered that the proposed development would replace an existing extension in the same location and the finished floor levels would be the same as those within the existing dwelling. It is therefore considered that the proposed scheme would be sufficient to mitigate against any potential flood risk, in accordance with Policy ENV19.
7.9 It has been noted that the application property is located within the vicinity of Pishiobury Park, an historic garden. For those reasons outlined above, it is considered that the proposed development would not be detrimental to the special historic character and setting of Pishiobury Park, in accordance with Policy BH16.
Page 170 3/10/1074/FP
8.0 Conclusion
8.1 In summary, it is considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in this instance and that special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm, by reason of inappropriateness within the Green Belt.
8.2 It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to those conditions outlined at the head of this report.
Page 171 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 172 27
PIPIPI P SPHPSHSH ISISISOIOIO PIPIHPIHIHBIB B SHSHSOHBOUOBRUBRUR IOIOIUORUYRU YR Y BUBUBYUDYRYDRDR RYR YDR YD IDVIVIV D RD IRDVIREVIEVE RIRIREIE E VEVEVE
39
2 4
8
4
0 5
4 5
2 6
P P P PIPSIHSPIHSH ISISIOSIOIO PIPIHPIHIHBIB B SHSHOSHOBUBORUBRUR IOIOIUORUYRU YR Y BUBUBYUDY RDY RD R RYR DYR DRYI RDVIRVIV
D DI DVIEVEIVE
RIREIREI E VEVEVE
6 6
PISHIOBURYPISHIOBURYPISHIOBURY DRIVE DRIVEDRIVE
6 7 5
1 3
1
7
4 1 3 9 Pishiobury
Mews 6 5 1
Garden 1 New Cottage
House
7 1
8 1
9 1 0
SITE
This copy has been produced specifically for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528
East Herts Council Address: 74, Pishiobury Drive, Sawbridgeworth, CM21 0AF Wallfields Reference: 3/10/1074/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:2500 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL 4713 SE Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 29-September-2010 Page 173 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 174 Agenda Item 5h 5H E/08/0331/B - Unauthorised erection of a portacabin building and use of a compound for the storage of redundant frames in connection with the business of “Windowman and Sons”, a double glazing company, at Foxholes Farm, London Road, Hertford, SG13 7NT.
Parish: HERTFORD
Ward: HERTFORD CASTLE
RECOMMENDATION
That the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Director of Internal Services, be authorised to take enforcement action under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any such further steps as may be required to secure the removal of the unauthorised developments from the land.
Period for compliance: 3 months.
Reasons why it is expedient to issue an enforcement notice:
1. The portacabin building and storage compound lie within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined in the East Hertfordshire Local Plan wherein permission will not be given except in very special circumstances for development for purposes other than those required for mineral extraction, agriculture, small scale facilities for participatory sport and recreation or other uses appropriate to a rural area. These developments do not relate to any of these uses, and there are no very special circumstances apparent in this case to justify their retention. Furthermore, the unauthorised building is not of a suitable design and materials for the surroundings. The developments are therefore contrary to policies GBC1, GBC7 and GBC8 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and contrary to national planning guidance in PPG2.
(033408B.CA)
1.0 Background
1.1 The site is shown on the attached OS extract. It lies on the northern side of London Road about 500 metres East of the junction with the A414. The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt.
1.2 Foxholes Farm is used for a number of diverse planning uses. In addition to the farm, farm shop and yogurt production facility, the former dairy buildings have an approved business use, an area of land at the site is used for the storage of caravans, a further area has a lawful use for the Page 175 E/08/0331/B
storage of scaffolding and a barn has permission for the long term storage of builders plant and materials.
1.3 In July 2008 a concern was expressed to the Council that the site was being used for a number of other businesses without the benefit of planning permission.
1.4 The enforcement officer visited the site in September 2008 and as a result of that visit, and subsequent correspondence, a number of businesses vacated the site.
1.5 In February 2010 the enforcement officer made a further pre-arranged visit to the site with the owner and his agent. Whilst on site the officer noted that a portacabin building had been installed at the rear of the former dairy building occupied by a double glazing company. The fascia and one side of the portacabin had been covered in plastic cladding with doors and windows from the company’s range inserted therein. The building is used as a showroom and office for the company who lawfully occupy the adjacent former dairy building.
1.6 The officer also noted another area of the farm where there were a number of blue bins and skips, with old window frames and garage doors apparently removed from properties. The area resembled a small waste transfer station and was used for the business purposes of the company.
1.7 Following correspondence between the enforcement officer and the owner’s planning agent, a retrospective planning application was submitted under application number 3/10/1299/FP seeking to regularise these developments. A planning report submitted with the application indicates
that the portacabin has been in place for a period ofth three years. This application was refused under delegated powers on 14 September 2010.
1.8 The enforcement officer subsequently spoke with the planning agent who indicated that the owner intended to appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission. As the portacabin may become lawful during the appeal process if an enforcement notice is not served on it, officers consider that it is necessary to serve such a notice to prevent this development acquiring immunity from enforcement action.
1.9 Officers’ are aware of other enforcement issues at Foxholes Farm and discussions are taking place between the owner, his agent and both planning and enforcement officers with regard to those matters. It is likely that other planning applications will be made in the near future. In taking action against this matter the identified site will be the development areas Page 176 only to ensure that any notice will not have the effect of regularising any E/08/0331/B
further breaches of planning control elsewhere on the farm by reason of under-enforcement.
1.10 Photographs and plans of the site will be available at the meeting.
2.0 Planning History
2.1 The most relevant planning history for the site can be summarised as follows:-
3/89/2007/FP Use of land for storage of caravans. Approved.
3/90/1330/FP Fenced compound with mobile office County forming transfer depot (Building waste). matter.
3/92/0284/FP Conversion of existing barn to dwelling. Refused.
3/93/0017/OP Erection of dwelling for occupation by Refused. farm manager.
3/93/0911/OP Erection of dwelling for occupation for Refused. farm manager.
3/96/0304/OP Erection of stockman’s dwelling. Refused.
3/97/0805/FP Conversion of barn to dwelling for Refused. agricultural worker, amended proposal.
3/02/0679/FP Continued use of barn for long term Approved. storage of builders plant and materials.
3/02/0680/FP Change of use of former diary Approved. buildings to B1c and B8 use.
3/02/2197/CL Storage of scaffolding. Approved.
3/04/1997/FP Change of use of agricultural barn to Withdrawn by storage and distribution B8 applicant (Retrospective).
3/04/2125/FP Change of use of land to create hard Refused. standing for vehicle parking and associated offices, welfare facilities and diesel tank. Page 177 E/08/0331/B
3/06/0027/FP Construction of building for us as a Approved. farm shop, butchery and farm office.
3/06/2522/FP Change of use of scaffolder’s Withdrawn by compound to coach park and barn to a applicant. maintenance depot, erection of ancillary offices.
3/09/1653/FP Change of use of scaffolder’s Withdrawn by compound for depot for non-agricultural applicant. vehicles, plan and equipment and installation of weighbridge.
3/10/1100/FP Change of use of farm buildings to Approved. Building A (Retail A1), Building B (B2 workshop & B8 storage) and Building C (B8 storage) – Retrospective.
3/10/1299/FP Installation of a portacabin for use as Refused. an office/showroom.
3.0 Enforcement History
3.1 Thirteen enforcement files have been opened on Foxholes Farm since 1998, six of them relating to the use of the site as an operating centre. Other concerns have related to the use of the site as a depot for companies operating businesses such as road surfacing contractors, a coach company, a scaffolding company and a crane hire company. Further concerns have been raised with regard to the use of a barn for a coach repair operation, the creation of a hardstanding and the erection of a weighbridge. Members may recall that planning enforcement notices were authorised in 2007 with regard to the unauthorised use of part of the farm as a depot for Reg’s Coaches. Those notices were subsequently upheld at a public inquiry and that use has now ceased.
4.0 Policy
4.1 The relevant national policy in this matter is contained within PPG2 - Green Belts and PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development.
Page 178 E/08/0331/B
4.2 The relevant saved policies of the adopted local Plan in this matter are:-
GBC1 Appropriate Development in the Green Belt.
GBC7 Agricultural Development.
GBC8 Rural Diversification.
ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality.
5.0 Considerations
5.1 As previously mentioned, the site is within the Green Belt wherein National and Local Plan policies are aimed at the protection of the countryside and the prevention of inappropriate development. It is considered that the unauthorised developments represent encroachment of the countryside and adversely impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. It is therefore contrary to saved policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and to National policy contained in paragraph 3.4 of PPG2.
5.2 Officers do not consider that the new portacabin is essential to the operation and it does not, therefore, support the diversification of the farm enterprise as a whole. Policy GBC8 relating to farm diversification refers to the provision of new buildings, but states that these must meet the criteria of policy GBC7. However officers do not consider that the portacabin does so. It is not of a design, appearance or materials that is sympathetic to its surroundings. The proposal as such fails to comply with policy GBC7 and therefore with GBC8 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
6.0 Recommendation
6.1 It is therefore recommended that authorisation be given to issue and serve a Planning Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the unauthorised developments.
Page 179 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 180
5 1
1 3
4
2
5 1
2 16 9
g 2 1 1
8
7
1 2 9
8 Works 1 5
5
14 3
2 4 25 8
Works 3
1
3
e 0 1
1 2 9
7 9 3
Works 7
2 5 3
1
9 1
1
2
1 9 1
3 2 2
2
7
3
1 45 5 9 3
6
8
7
2 6 7 3
1 2
1
7 8
8 2 4 3 1 0 1 3
8
0 1 1 1 2 8
2 9 a
1 8
7 0
1 1 1
8
2 4
2 8
5 2
3
2
6
8 4
3 8 7 0 2 3 4 3
5 1 2
1 3
1
9 2
5 8 0
8 1 2 0 3 2
Works 1
1 8 1
5 8
0
2 2
6 3 4
0
2
2 7 4 6 2 Works 6
1 2
5 17 5
4
9
6 8 7
1
0 8
b 5
Works 7
7
6 2 4
3
1 4 3
5 5
1 2
3
4 1
1
1
9 0
7 Works 0
3 3
Works
7
4 6 4
2 1
1
5 Works 5
3 5
8
3
6 to 9 to 6 9
10 to 18 to 10
2
7
5
9 2
6 Works
5
Depot 4 5
4
1 9
3
5 Works 3
4
Harforde 6 1
2 5 Depot 5 Court 7
Harforde Court 2 C Gas Governor nit
U 3 9 o
t
1
6
Works 7 8
8 0
Works 1
6
2
1 1
A nit 5 U
7 4
9
Depot
5
1 0
4 1 0
GVC 1 1
Depot
3 2
1 SITE
Foxholes Farm
Foxholes Cottage
The Coach House
Foxholes Farm
8 11 3 2
1
Jenningsbury BBB BB B1 1 1 1 11 111 111119197977 997977
The Lodge
5
1
2
3 4 Jenningsbury Court
Jenningsbury Farm
This copy has been produced specifically for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528
East Herts Council Address: Foxholes Farm, London Road, Hertford, SG13 7NT Wallfields Reference: E/08/0331/B Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:5000 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL 3412 SE Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 24-September-2010 Page 181 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 182 Foxholes Farm
Foxholes Cottage
The Coach House
Foxholes Farm
This copy has been produced specifically for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528
East Herts Council Address: Foxholes Farm, London Road, Hertford, SG13 7NT Wallfields Reference: E/08/0331/B Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:1250 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL 3412 SE Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 24-September-2010 Page 183 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 184 Agenda Item 6
EAST HERTS COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 20 OCTOBER 2010
REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES
6. UPDATE ON ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS AND AUTHORISED ACTION
WARDS AFFECTED: ALL
Purpose/Summary of Report
1.1 To update Members on enforcement statistics and authorised action.
RECOMMENDATION FOR DECISION:
(A) That the report be noted.
2.0 Report
2.1 This report is to update members of the Development Control Committee on the enforcement statistics and the authorised actions from previous meetings.
2.2 The statistics are reported at paragraph 3.0 below and the updated report of authorised actions can be found at Appendix 1 attached.
3.0 Statistics
3.1 Enforcement Cases 2003 489 Enforcement Cases 2004 504 3% increase on 2003 Enforcement Cases 2005 601 19% increase on 2004 Enforcement Cases 2006 642 6% increase on 2005 Enforcement Cases 2007 677 5% increase on 2006 Enforcement Cases 2008 654 3% decrease on 2007 Enforcement Cases 2009 526 19% decrease on 2008 Enforcement Cases 2010 346 to 30.09.10
3.1 Notices served. (* to date)
Page 185 Year Enf. Not LBEN S215 HH BCN PCN
2004 15 1 2 - 1 2 2005 23 - 1 - - 3 2006 30 3 1 2 2 15 2007 44 3 2 - 2 11 2008 26 - 2 1 2 5 2009 29 1 3 - 2 8 2010 * 39 2 5 - - 27
Abbreviations
Enf. Not Enforcement Notice LBEN Listed Building Enforcement Notice S215 section 215 Notice HH High Hedge Remedial Notice BCN Breach of Condition Notice PCN Planning Contravention Notice.
Contact Member : Councillor Malcolm Alexander, Executive Member for Community Safety and Protection.
Contact Officer : Glyn Day, Principal Planning Enforcement Officer, Extn: 1551.
Report Author: Glyn Day, Principal Planning Enforcement Officer, Extn: 1551.
Page 186 ESSENTIAL REFERENCE PAPER ‘A’
Contribution to Caring about what’s built and where the Council’s Care for and improve our natural and built environment. Corporate Priorities/ Shaping now, shaping the future Objectives Safeguard and enhance our unique mix of rural and (delete as urban communities, ensuring sustainable, economic and appropriate): social opportunities including the continuation of effective development control and other measures.
Consultation: Not subject to consultation.
Legal: Enforcement notices are all subject to consultation with the Legal Manager. Financial: Enforcement Notices can result in appeals with associated costs. Human None. Resource: Risk Risks associated with enforcement action are considered Management: prior to the decision to take formal action.
Page 187 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 EAST HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL Agenda Item 7 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 20 OCTOBER 2010 ITEMS FOR REPORT AND NOTING
(A) APPEALS Director of Neighbourhood Services (Development Control)
Application number: 3/09/0917/FP Recommendation: Permission refuse Level of Decision: Committee - 23-Sep-2009 Site: Cole Green Works, Station Road, Cole Green, Hertford, Herts, SG14 2NL Appellant: Mr D Mousley Prop. Development: Redevelopment of site to provide 10 dwellings Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application number: 3/09/1339/LB Recommendation: Listed building consent refuse Level of Decision: Delegated - 02-Dec-2009 Site: 11, Railway Street, Hertford, Hertfordshire, SG14 1BG Appellant: Mrs Celene Chen Prop. Development: 3 storey rear extension to 1 residential unit over existing shop Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application number: 3/09/1369/FP Recommendation: Permission refuse Level of Decision: Delegated - 21-Oct-2009 Site: 11, Railway Street, Hertford, Hertford, Herts, SG14 1BG Appellant: Prop. Development: 3 storey rear extension to 1 residential unit over existing shop Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application number: 3/09/1674/FP Recommendation: Permission refuse Level of Decision: Delegated - 23-Dec-2009 Site: Land adjacent to, 1, Molewood Road, Hertford, HERTS, SG14 3AQ Appellant: Mr Anthony Catchpole and Mrs Deborah Deville Prop. Development: Proposed change of use to construct hard standing. Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application number: 3/09/1971/CL Recommendation: Cert of proposed use/dev refuse Level of Decision: Delegated - 29-Jan-2010 Site: 73, Downfield Road, Hertford Heath, Herts, SG13 7SA Appellant: Mr B Martin (Wyndcrest Homes Ltd) Prop. Development: Proposed outbuilding incorporating garaging, carport and office space Appeal Decision Allowed
Application number: 3/09/2108/FP Recommendation: Permission refuse Level of Decision: Delegated - 24-Feb-2010 Site: Wyddial Bury Farm Office, Wyddial Bury Farm, Wyddial, Nr Buntingford, HERTS, SG9 0EL Appellant: Mr Greg Hodge Prop. Development: Demolition of existing building and construction of new dwelling. Appeal Decision Allowed
Background Papers Correspondence at Essential Reference ‘B’.
Contact Officers Kevin Steptoe, Head of Planning and Building Control – Extn: 1407. Alison Young, Development Control Manager – Extn: 1553. Page 199
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 200 Page 201 Page 202 Page 203 Page 204 Page 205 Page 206 Page 207 Page 208 Page 209 Page 210 Page 211 Page 212 Page 213 Page 214 Page 215 Page 216 Page 217 Page 218 Page 219 Page 220 Page 221 Page 222 Page 223 Page 224 Page 225 Page 226 Page 227 Page 228 Page 229 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 230 (B) PLANNING APPEALS LODGED Director of Neighbourhood Services (Development Control) Application Description Decision Appeal Start Date Appeal No: Location Mode 3/10/0496/FP Retention of wooden Approved 13-Sep-2010 Informal lodge. with Hearing Crouchfield Farm, Conditions Wadesmill Road, Chapmore End, Ware, Delegated Herts, SG12 0EY 3/10/0563/FP Erection of outbuilding Refused 21-Sep-2010 Written for use as a leisure Evidence building - Delegated summerhouse, fitness room and exercise pool room - retrospective Orchard Cottages, Epping Green, Hertford, Herts, SG13 8ND 3/10/0804/FP Alteration and Refused 21-Sep-2010 Written extension of double Evidence garage/store to single Delegated garage, swimming pool building and ancillary facilities The Tallet, Slough Road, Allens Green, Sawbridgeworth, Herts, CM21 0LR 3/10/0904/FP Two storey rear and Refused 14-Sep-2010 Written single storey side Evidence extensions Delegated The Old School House, The Street, Furneux Pelham, Buntingford, Herts, SG9 0LH 3/10/1092/FP Two storey and single Refused 13-Sep-2010 Written storey side extensions. Evidence New front porch and Delegated single garage to replace existing garage to no. 66. 64, The Wick, Hertford, Herts, SG14 3HR 3/10/1105/FP Demolition of existing Refused 10-Sep-2010 Written stables & store and Evidence erection of Delegated replacement outbuilding consisting of leisure/games room, workshop & store with Page 231 ancillary staff accommodation above Frogmore Farm, Frogmore Hill, Watton At Stone, Herts, SG14 3RR 3/10/1217/FP Two storey side Refused 23-Sep-2010 Written extension plus single Evidence storey side/rear Delegated extension 45, Green Lane, Braughing, Ware, Herts, SG11 2QW 3/10/1218/FP Single storey side/rear Refused 23-Sep-2010 Written extension Evidence 45, Green Lane, Delegated Braughing, Ware, Herts, SG11 2QW NOTE: This report shows only appeals lodged since the last Development Control Committee agenda deadline.
Background Papers None.
Contact Officers Kevin Steptoe, Head of Planning and Building Control, Extn: 1407. Alison Young, Development Control Manager, Extn: 1553.
Page 232 Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing Dates
Public Inquiries
Aplication Location Proposal Inquiry Date Number None
Informal Hearings
Application Location Proposal Hearing Number Date 3/10/0496/FP Crouchfield Farm, Retain wooden No date set Wadesmill Road, lodge dwelling yet Chapmore End
Enforcement Appeals (where the matter does not relate to an associated planning or similar application which are set out above)
Ref number Location Development Date E/08/0051/B Calves Grove, White Use of land for 19 Oct 10 Stubbs Lane residential caravan
Page 233 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 234 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
Major, Minor and Other Planning Applications
Cumulative Performance for September 2010 (calculated from April 2010) Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 AGENDA ITEM No. 7D No. ITEM AGENDA Total Applications Received 189 364 576 789 963 1136
Targets for National Local Targets (set Percentage achieved Performance by against Local and (set by East Government)
National Targets Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Herts)
Major % 50 50 75 77 80 67 Major % 69% 60%
Minor % 89 87 89 85 84 84 Minor % 80% 65%
Other % 97 93 94 94 94 94 Other % 92% 80% #####
Appeals Apr-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Total number of appeal decisions (Monthy) 9 3 14 12 9 11 Number Allowed against our refusal Page 235 (Monthly) 3 2 5 6 4 4 Page 236 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
Major, Minor and Other Planning Applications
Cumulative Performance for September 2010 (calculated from April 2010)
Total number of appeal decisions (Cumulative) 9 12 26 38 47 58 Number Allowed against our refusal (Cumulative) 3 5 10 16 20 24