Hertford Regional College - Ware Campus

[Scottman]

Pleased to hear that Ware Town Council repeated its recommendation for rejection of this Application at last Monday (22/9)'s Planning Committee meeting.

Apparently East Herts Councillors are being 'briefed on the implications' of the developers' Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate at a special meeting on 1 October. There is then a full public discussion of it on the agenda for Wednesday 15 October from 7.30 pm. A lot of effort has gone in to critiquing the developers' original proposal and appeal grounds, and the EDC Planners' recommendation to support.

It's time to stop over-intensive and under-resourced new build developments, and ensure that new homes have space enough and car parking enough for real modern life. Land prices will adjust accordingly, if it is worth little without planning permission. EHC holds the key here, and its Councillors should hold their courageous line.

[Scottman]

So here we go again ..... new plans sent in for the Scotts Road side of the Ware College site last week - 49 homes this time (instead of 50), the block of flats moved back to sit on the same footprint as the current building (well done sirs) but another questionable design to delight our eyes. At least its not quite so 'in your face' as the last proposal.

The bit that beggars belief is the continuing lack of car parking for the residents. I space per 2 bed flat, 2 spaces per 3 and 4 bed home - of which one is (in the case of 11 properties) a 'standard width' garage which no modern car can use.

In an area with all roads parking controlled.

Dumb ? I do think so. Ware Town Council's planning committee is to consider this latest proposal on Monday 13 October from 7.30 pm.

[Steve]

Anyone who has a spare half hour might be interested to read the Head Of Planning's report to the Development Committee regarding The Council's representation to the appeal in February 2015.

http://online.eastherts.gov.uk/moderngo ... Appeal.pdf

[Wareite1969]

So the part the council aren't fighting is the one part guaranteed to blight the area for years !!!

[The Masked Woler]

So the part the council aren't fighting is the one part guaranteed to blight the area for years !!!

You are clearly mistaken - the proposed amount of parking "..... would cause little inconvenience to existing residents and it is likely that there would be capacity for future residents."

So far as I can see it would be difficult for the Council to sustain their objection - the max provision for the site would be 100 spaces, the zone 3 reduction takes it to 50-75 so the proposed 72 is at the upper end of the Council's own guidance. As I have mentioned before being near the station (and bus stop) impacts on the amount of parking the Council say is needed. The people living there won't need cars.

[Scottman]

So the part the council aren't fighting is the one part guaranteed to blight the area for years !!!

You are clearly mistaken - the proposed amount of parking "..... would cause little inconvenience to existing residents and it is likely that there would be capacity for future residents."

So far as I can see it would be difficult for the Council to sustain their objection - the max provision for the site would be 100 spaces, the zone 3 reduction takes it to 50-75 so the proposed 72 is at the upper end of the Council's own guidance. As I have mentioned before being near the station (and bus stop) impacts on the amount of parking the Council say is needed. The people living there won't need cars.

I am afraid it is you who are mistaken TMW (unless you are being ironic...)- and you have trotted out the same mistake that EHC's own officers made in assessing the original application. You are right in saying that the EHC guideline provision would be 100 spaces (actually 97). However there is NO 'Zone 3 reduction' in the residential guidelines - that guideline applies only to retail and industrial developments. If you think about it - industrial and retail units have cars coming and going all day, but homes do not - at night the full number of cars in the household will be 'at home' usually. Residential guidelines suggest 97 parking spaces, and no reduction.

So providing 70 spaces (actually) against the 97 the Council NORMALLY expects (if you or I were to try to extend our homes) is ridiculous. A neighbour had their application for a minor building project held up last month while the Council checked they could park at least 3 vehicles on their property.

The developer has taken some census data for the south of Ware to show lower than average car ownership. While that is likely true of a - shall we say - more mature of years population - it will not be true for people buying flats (or more likely renting them from BTL landlords) or new family homes at this development.

Parking is very difficult for those without driveways around the College already - this proposal is over intensive and under resourced.

[The Masked Woler]

So the part the council aren't fighting is the one part guaranteed to blight the area for years !!!

You are clearly mistaken - the proposed amount of parking "..... would cause little inconvenience to existing residents and it is likely that there would be capacity for future residents."

So far as I can see it would be difficult for the Council to sustain their objection - the max provision for the site would be 100 spaces, the zone 3 reduction takes it to 50-75 so the proposed 72 is at the upper end of the Council's own guidance. As I have mentioned before being near the station (and bus stop) impacts on the amount of parking the Council say is needed. The people living there won't need cars.

I am afraid it is you who are mistaken TMW (unless you are being ironic...)- and you have trotted out the same mistake that EHC's own officers made in assessing the original application. You are right in saying that the EHC guideline provision would be 100 spaces (actually 97). However there is NO 'Zone 3 reduction' in the residential guidelines - that guideline applies only to retail and industrial developments. If you think about it - industrial and retail units have cars coming and going all day, but homes do not - at night the full number of cars in the household will be 'at home' usually. Residential guidelines suggest 97 parking spaces, and no reduction.

So providing 70 spaces (actually) against the 97 the Council NORMALLY expects (if you or I were to try to extend our homes) is ridiculous. A neighbour had their application for a minor building project held up last month while the Council checked they could park at least 3 vehicles on their property.

The developer has taken some census data for the south of Ware to show lower than average car ownership. While that is likely true of a - shall we say - more mature of years population - it will not be true for people buying flats (or more likely renting them from BTL landlords) or new family homes at this development.

Parking is very difficult for those without driveways around the College already - this proposal is over intensive and under resourced.

ironic, me? surely not.

[Wareite1969]

As sad and fatalistic as this sounds it has all the hallmarks of 'We told you so' in a few years time. When the developers employ legal expertise, the council seem unable to interpret even their own guidance, planning staff don't feel inclined to admit they got it wrong, the development goes ahead and it's too late to address the lack of parking.

How many months before a residents parking scheme is having to be discussed as nobody can get out of their drives in the evening on Scott's Rd ?

[Steve]

When the developers employ legal expertise, the council seem unable to interpret even their own guidance, planning staff don't feel inclined to admit they got it wrong, the development goes ahead and it's too late to address the lack of parking.

To be fair, the council's planning officers recommended that planning permission be granted. It was councillors who decided to ignore their advice and refuse permission.

[Wareite1969]

When the developers employ legal expertise, the council seem unable to interpret even their own guidance, planning staff don't feel inclined to admit they got it wrong, the development goes ahead and it's too late to address the lack of parking.

To be fair, the council's planning officers recommended that planning permission be granted. It was councillors who decided to ignore their advice and refuse permission.

I meant the council's planning officers being unable to correctly apply the councils own written guidelines.

Herin lies the crux of the problem. Planning officers make a mistake and leave the council (and us as tax payers) open to a massive legal bill. This only ends two ways 1) An inappropriate development goes ahead due to incorrect advice by an officer or 2) The planning refusal is upheld and the developer sues for their costs incurred to due to incorrect advice. In neither scenario is the officer the person that carries the can.