Minutes of the meeting of Planning and development committee held at the Rhodes on 1 AUGUST 2011 at 7.30pm
* / Cllr K Barnes / * / Cllr Mrs N Symonds* / Cllr P Demonti (Vice-Chairman) / * / Cllr K Warnell (Chairman)
* / Cllr Mrs J Elliott / Cllr A Burlton (ex-officio)
* / Cllr S Harris
* / Cllr T Page
In attendance: / Davinia Skinner and Hilary Mitchell taking minutes
Approximately 50 Members of the public, including those with permission to speak.
* Denotes present ** Denotes present part time
113. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received by Cllr Burlton - Sickness
114. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 11 JULY 2011
It was RESOLVED to accept the Minutes of 11 July 2011 as a true record of the meeting.
115. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Cllr / Item(s) / Type / ReasonCllr Mrs Symonds / 3/11/1022/FP
3/11/1212/LB / Personal Interest
Personal Interest / Applicant Known to her
Applicant Known to her
Cllr Mrs Elliott / 3/11/1114/FP / Personal Interest / Applicant Known to her
Cllr Demonti / 3/11/1964/OP / Personal Interest / Applicant Known to him
Cllr Page / 3/11/1964/OP / Personal Interest / Member of East Herts Development Control Committee
Cllr Harris / 3/11/1007/AD / Personal Interest / Cllr Harris lives opposite to application site
Cllr Page stated that he was now a substitute member of East Herts Development Control Committee. As such, he reserved the right to change his opinion on any matter arising on tonight's agenda in the light of subsequent additional information becoming available.
116. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Cllr Warnell invited Mr Brownridge to speak on Planning Application 3/11/1082/FP
100 Hadham Road CM23 2QF
Mr Brownridge, resident of the adjacent property, voiced his objection to the application, stating that the plan failed to illustrate the dangerous rise in ground level. The footings of the property would descend by 8ft and leave an access of only 4ft alongside his house. Mr Brownridge pointed out that there had already been three extensions to the property in the last 10 years and the new plan constituted over intensification in the Conservation Area. In addition, there would be a considerable loss of mature trees and loss of daylight from the west side of his property.
Cllr Mrs Symonds stated that she had visited the site and was also very concerned at the depth of the footings, the over intensification of site and the size of the extension. Cllr Barnes had also visited the site and agreed that it was an extremely large extension, upon an extension which would have a detrimental effect on Mr Brownbridge’s property. He pointed out that it was not in keeping with other houses in the area. Cllr Mrs Elliott suggested that the development was contrary to the District Council’s Policy ENV1. Cllr Page agreed that the extension to the rear would cause light to be taken from west side of the property. The loss of mature trees and the development in the Conservation Area, were also of concern.
Members objected to the application and requested that the application be decided by the Planning and Development Control Committee.
117. NOTIFICATION OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ISSUED BY EAST HERTS COUNCIL (ITEM A)
3/10/1964/OP
Applicant: Henderson Global Investors Limited (Amended Drawings)
Cllr Mrs Norma Symonds objected to the presentation, stating that Henderson had not formally written to request presentation time. Cllr Warnell overruled Cllr Mrs Symonds, stating that both members of the Planning Committee and the public should be informed of the details.
PRESENTATIONS:
Mr Martin Perry – Henderson Global Investors Limited:
Mr Perry thanked members for allowing him the opportunity to outline the basic revisions to the planning application following concerns raised by members at the meeting of the Planning and Development Committee, held on 4 January 2011. He stated that the entire development had been reduced in scale and was still only an outline application. The scheme was a £105m regeneration investment aimed at turning retail around in Bishop’s Stortford and he predicted that £50m of resultant trade would benefit the town. Mr Perry used a slide show to illustrate the development and the following points of concern, indicated in bold, were addressed:
Flood Risks
The flood zones issues had been addressed and approved by the Environment Agency.
Canyon Effect in the Town
The north/south and east west routes had been re-designed to blend into the Town Structure and to reduce the height to some of the buildings.
Additional Housing/Flats
There will not be a large number of flats included in the scheme, however, addition housing will be included, with the aim being to keep people living in the Town Centre.
Disconnection from main shopping area
The aim of the development was to create a circular primary retail shopping area within the Town.
Temporary Parking
There were two plans for temporary parking which would not reduce the available parking during the construction period. There were three options for parking within the scheme.
Transport and Traffic Assessment
A microsimulation of the scheme had been produced. The County Council were of the opinion that the traffic modelling was workable.
Insufficient consideration of alternative sites
Sequential tests had been undertaken and the Causeway was chosen as the most appropriate site. From a policy point of view, the site had to be the primary consideration.
Insufficient Public Consultation
Throughout the planning process, public consultation had been thorough and conformed with planning policy.
Loss of Historic Sightlines
Unfortunately, the development of the site would mean some loss of sight lines from the Meads area.
Mr Michael Hurford, Civic Federation:
Mr Hurford disputed Mr Perry’s comments regarding the Environment Agency’s views on the flood zones.
The proposed development would affect sightlines in the core of the Town which should be preserved, ie North Street, Water Lane, Basbow Lane and Church Street, resulting in the destruction of views of the Anglo Saxon and Norman Churches.
No pre-application archaeological assessment had been undertaken, in breach of the PPS5 HE6 required by planning regulations. English Heritage had indicated that there was no financial justification for this development, when taking into consideration the destruction of the important historical area.
The Civic Federation rejected the need for a hotel and the additional cinema as there were already two cinemas in the Town. In addition, the area already contained eight restaurants.
No more flats were needed, on the contrary, the market for flats was currently dead with just a small market remaining for re-letting. The plan was wholly in conflict with the District Plan, contrary to policies ENV1, BIS10 and BH6.
Mr Hurford disputed the period of construction, having been given as 36 weeks by Henderson. The disruption caused by temporary traffic lights, in particular in the Link Road area would be enormous. Post construction would be just as bad, and despite Mr Perry’s comments to the contrary, Highways currently objected to the proposal, and was awaiting sensible answers from the District Council to a number of questions. It was clear that traffic lights would need to be installed at both the entrance and the exit to the site, in addition to pedestrian crossings; the whole issue would be transport lunacy.
Mr Hurford stated that the artist’s impressions on the plans were propaganda; the best example of such was the Jackson Square development; Lussman’s was shown as an area of beauty, however, the reality had proved a different matter.
Mr Hurford requested that members of the Planning and Development Committee reject the application.
Mr Clive Risby, representing the views of the residents of Yew Tree Place:
Mr Risby confirmed that the comments made by the Civic Federation were correct and supported by the residents of Yew Tree Place.
The planning application did nothing to enhance the Conservation area. Using the height of the United Reform Church as a benchmark, the height of the proposed buildings were unacceptable, as they would stop all historic views across Town.
The development would entail the destruction of many mature trees and the closure of footpaths. Plans to lower the floodplain were unacceptable with no consideration being given to the flooding which had occurred in 2003.
One of the proposed areas for temporary parking was the field adjacent to the Northgate Centre, which was accessed through the private road leading to Yew Tree Place. The area, established as a public space in 1839, was purchased by the School in 1928 and has been used ever since as the School playing field, as well being used by several different youth groups. The field also provided a haven for wildlife and the public, although it was prone to flooding every winter. The danger was that if the development was approved, the field would remain as a car parking area thereafter.
Mr Edwards – private resident:
Mr Edwards stated that he had been a resident of Bishop’s Stortford for 35 years, had lived in the area for 45 years and was against the proposed development. Mr Edwards expressed his concern regarding the restricted views of St Michael’s Church and the Castle Mound. It was misleading that there were no tall buildings of 3, 4, or 5 storeys shown on the artist’s impression. He pointed out that the underground car park at the Causeway would hold 670 cars and the traffic from the car park would exit onto the Causeway at the point were there was currently a pedestrian crossing. Henderson had suggested that very little traffic would flow down Bridge Street, however, this would pose the question as to how vehicles driving to the Station would get out onto the Causeway. In addition, another canyon effect would be produced by the development, such as that which had been established alongside the river.
Mr Edwards stated that in his opinion, the Goods Yard site would be a more suitable area for the building of a hotel as the southern end of the Town was in desperate need of regeneration. Of major concern was the traffic disruption caused by lorries. People who lived out of Town would find it too difficult to negotiate the traffic problems and would shop somewhere else rather than come into Bishop’s Stortford. Parking at Northgate End and Grange Paddocks was not a viable solution.
Mr Edwards pointed out that this was a Town issue and he asked that local delegates represent the views of the Towns’ people by voting against the proposed development.
Cllr Warnell thanked everyone for their presentations and asked members to consider whether the developer had changed anything since the last planning application was submitted.
Cllr Barnes stated that he had attended the Henderson presentation at the Town Council on Monday 25 July 2011 and had a number of concerns which would not allow him to support the application. He pointed out that a number of hotels had closed recently, ie. Dane House, Foxley, Chequers, Station Hotel and The George and he questioned the need for another hotel at all. With regard to additional shops, there were currently over a dozen empty retail units in the Town, some of which were in Jackson Square. A letter had been received from Waitrose objecting to the proposed application. Additional living apartments were not needed and extra Cinema facilities would take trade away from the cinemas already established in the Town, ie at Anchor Street and at Rhodes. Cllr Barnes stated that the highways implications were horrendous and he was not sure if people were aware of the extent of vehicle movements
during the removal of contaminated soil from the Meads which would be taken to Peterborough, and the removal of soil from the underground car park which would then be taken to the Meads; how many lorry movements would it involve? Urbanisation of the Meads would be totally unacceptable. Cllr Barnes stated that the loss of views would be irreplaceable and the natural environment in the Town should be allowed to remain. The majority of residents did not want to see the proposed plans, which were totally out of keeping with in the Conservation area, to go ahead.
Cllr Demonti stated that he was Ward Councillor for the area of the proposed development and the only positive comment he had received was support for the mini department store which he felt was the carrot that had been dangled to entice support from the Town. However, the market forces should decide what development should take place; the Town did not need the rest of the proposed development. A large hotel and 37 more shops were unnecessary. Who would use them? There were already empty shops in the Town. Eighteen months of building work would disrupt shoppers who would go somewhere else. With regard to the car parking issue, Cllr Demonti expressed his disapproval for the proposal to tarmac the meadow at Northgate End and the double decking parking at Link Road. He stated that the development would be detrimental to the South Street area where development was badly needed.
RESOLVED that members OBJECT to this application on the following grounds:
· It would result in the loss of historic sightlines and destruction of open areas close to the Town Centre due to the bulk, height and location of the proposed buildings;
· The development would cause irrevocable damage to an important Town Centre site and is against the Local Plan, in particular Policies BH6, ENV1 and BIS10;