PLANNING COMMITTEE
WARE TOWN COUNCIL
A meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE was held in the Priory Hall, Ware
Priory, Ware on Monday 28 February 2011 at 7.30 pm when the following
business was transacted.
PRESENT
Councillors P Ballam (in the Chair), E Bedford, D Day and G
Powell
ATTENDING
J Rowlinson (Town Clerk); Cllr A Mills, Cllr M Pope; County
Cllr D Andrews; Ian Richardson and Sue-Jane O’Keeffe,
CVS for Broxbourne & East Herts; 2 representatives of
Riversmead Housing; Ciaran Gold, press; 10 members of
the public
557. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Cllr E Bailey.
558. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Cllr Powell declared a personal interest in item 562, application 27/11
as a friend the of applicant’s neighbour.
559. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 31 January 2011 were received,
approved and adopted and signed by the Chairman as a true record.
560. MATTERS ARISING
None.
561. PLANNING APPLICATION 3/10/2106/FP – HOE LANE GARAGES
Application 19/11 – 3/10/2106/FP. The application was for change of
use from garage units to furniture recycle scheme. A presentation was
given by Ian Richardson and Sue-Jane O’Keeffe of CVS for Broxbourne
& East Herts. The main points were: The CVS supported 350 local voluntary groups in East Herts and
Broxbourne and worked in partnership with local agencies to meet
identified community need.
174
PLANNING COMMITTEE
 One need identified had been a furniture recycling scheme for
Broxbourne and East Herts.
 This would be run be a small team of volunteers.
 It would offer high quality second hand furniture and starter packs
 There would be no refurbishing or making of furniture
 The recycling of furniture would reduce landfill
 There would be links to other organisations such as credit unions
 The need for this project had been identified by a feasibility study
 There was an existing project which desperately needed to be
developed as no other service was co-ordinated district wide
 Landfill space was running out and landfill diversion was required.
 The project would offer volunteering opportunities and training
 It would offer better access to low cost, high quality, ready made
furniture and an alternative to borrowing from loan sharks
 It would reduce fly-tipping – there was no evidence that furniture
was dumped at other schemes.
 Riversmead Housing were willing to donate this site to the CVS
for the furniture recycling scheme
 It would be positive use of a derelict building and would reduce
anti-social behaviour at the site
 Residents had been consulted at an open day in August to look at
the site and ask questions before a planning application was
submitted.
 Residents’ main concerns had been
- noise – there were currently 21 garages and if these were used
twice a day then the number of visits would reduce if the furniture
scheme went ahead
- parking – visitors to the scheme would park on Hoe Lane so the
scheme would be open when parking restrictions were not in
operation (ie between 11am and 3pm)
- vermin – this had not been a problem at similar schemes
 Noise would be kept to a minimum to be sensitive to local
residents
 Opening hours would initially be 2 or 3 days per week, daytime
only
 Deliveries and viewings would be strictly by appointment. These
would be made in line with parking restrictions in Hoe Lane which
were between 11am and 3pm.
 The estimated number of visits was 10 per day, 2 or 3 days per
week
 Public transport use would be encouraged
 Outreach sale points would be actively sought
 Signage would be to the main door only and not lit
175
PLANNING COMMITTEE
A question and answer session followed. The main points were: Why were residents from 2 & 4 Hoe Lane not invited to the open
day in August? Had CVS carried out any surveys on the hazards
at that point in Hoe Lane?
Riversmead Housing had carried out a feasibility study on the
garages in Hoe Lane and the Riversmead residents there had
been consulted.
 Entrance and turning arrangements were questioned.
The 8 underground garages would remain and the entrance to
these would not change.
 Parking problems in Hoe Lane were raised as was the difficulty
residents experienced in pulling out of their drives in the morning.
Concern was expressed about the amount of traffic at 8.30 am
when there were a lot of school children with no pedestrian
crossing.
The facility would only be operating from 11am to 3pm.
 This completely the wrong place why were they not looking at
Marsh Lane?
Because the CVS had not been offered a free site in Marsh Lane.
 Residents wanted the site made back into garages with a card
entry scheme.
The garages had been closed for 3 years
 If the facility was only open for 2 or 3 days a week how would it
solve anti-social behaviour?
 Presdales school and 2 special schools were in this area, parents
would arrive before 3pm how would parking problems be
alleviated?
CVS would have use of a van for 1 day per week only and they
would deliver to all customers.
 This would not reduce vehicle movements as the garages were
currently closed.
At large projects, the most visits they had were 20 per day.
 It would be better to demolish the garages and build more social
housing.
Residents had been very concerned at the prospect of this.
 Anti-social behaviour had stopped over the last 3 years since the
garages had been closed off. Concern was that this would be a
change from a residential to a commercial area and that residents
had not been informed about the open day.
 Where would furniture be delivered?
Via Hoe Lane or, if it was too big, via the main gate at the side
entrance
176
PLANNING COMMITTEE
 Who would be allowed to bring furniture?
Only furniture suitable for immediate resale would be accepted
and this would be collected.
 People will fly-tip furniture if the facility is closed.
There is no evidence from other sites that this would happen and
the CVS is determined not to allow this.
 How will this be stopped if it is not open all the time?
CVS will explain that furniture left outside could not be used and
would have to be thrown away. Opening hours would be made
clear.
 Given the size of Freecycle and Freegle, where is the market for
this facility?
With these sites you cannot guarantee what you will get or when
and you have to collect items yourself. Most people on a limited
income do not have access to a van to pick up furniture.
 There had been robbery and vandalism at a previous scheme in
Ware.
That scheme had been too isolated and was sited amongst
industrial buildings.
The meeting was adjourned for Mrs Belsey to address the meeting
on behalf of objectors as follows:1. No local businesses were given knowledge of this proposed
change of use – therefore, the Committee should
democratically postpone any decision until all opinions have
been heard.
2. There is no safe place for the pedestrians to cross. This is
most hazardous for local children that need to cross to get to
school – including pupils travelling by train who come from
Ware train station.
3. The traffic travels at such a rate up and down the lane; this is
an increasing problem. The speed humps that were put in
some years ago are an indication of this. These had to be
removed because of heavy vibrations caused to residents –
however, there seems to have been no further efforts made to
slow and control the traffic, traffic that is so very, very
dangerous. Why? Why increase the traffic and make those
already hazardous areas more dangerous?
4. The area opposite numbers 2 and 4 Hoe Lane is a single
yellow line zone. This allows vehicles to park at the most
dangerous times. When pulling out from the drive ways of
numbers 2 and 4 when vehicles are parked opposite, it is
impossible to do so safely. I offer the experience to any drivers
177
PLANNING COMMITTEE
5.
6.
7.
8.
here. It was stated in the meeting in August that this area was
the intended stopping point for vehicles accessing the
proposed site.
The verge on the small green area, we predict this will be a
perfect one stop dump site for those who can’t wait.
The entrance for emergency vehicles to use would be impaired
for those living to the back of the site – 24 hour access could
not be guaranteed putting a risk to health and safety.
Fire is also a major concern of all residents I have spoken with,
as the above are is still remaining as garages.
The request for safer parking to be redesigned into this area is
the most favoured idea by local residents.
A representative of Riversmead Housing replied as follows: traffic movements would be less than at present
 the driveway of the two houses concerned came out onto a
straight road
 parking in the area was not bad enough to warrant double yellow
lines. There were single yellow lines to prevent commuters
parking there.
 crime had been prevented since the garages were gated off.
 staff of the facility could park in the empty garage space. There
would be a maximum of 3 staff there at any one time.
 the facility would not be used at 8am when the traffic was worst.
 this had been proposed as a joint venture in order to make use of
the garages.
 they did experience some fly-tipping at the garage site.
The meeting reconvened.
It was RESOLVED to object to the application on grounds that:
Although a worthy scheme, this would be better in an
industrial area.

Parking and traffic problems with 3 schools in the area, near
an already hazardous junction.
562. CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Cllr Powell declared a personal interest in item 562, application 27/11
as a friend of the applicant’s neighbour.
Application numbers 19/11 – 32/11 were before the Committee. It was
178
PLANNING COMMITTEE
RESOLVED that comments on Application Nos. 19/11 – 32/11 as
scheduled and attached to the Minutes be submitted to the
Director of Planning, East Herts District Council.
563. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DETERMINED TO DATE
Received and noted.
564. EAST HERTS COUNCIL CALL-IN PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING
APPLICATIONS
The Town Clerk had put forward to East Herts Council Ware Town
Council’s request that if a Town or Parish Council objects to a planning
application, then the application should be heard by the Development
Control Committee rather than decided by delegated powers. This was
not possible because of the required timescales for determining
applications and the effect on the length of Development Control
Meetings. Other Town Councils used the EHC member call-in
procedure and asked the East Herts Councillors for their areas to call in
particular planning applications. However, whether the application was
then heard by the Development Control Committee remained at the
discretion of Chair of the Committee and often East Herts Councillors
were not successful in getting the applications heard by Development
Control. The Chief Executive of East Herts Council had discussed the
call-in procedure with Cllr Ashby, Chair of the Development Control
Committee. He was minded to retain the current system and would
want to stress that he would expect local district members to be aware
of the views of the Town Council and to approach him if necessary. He
was also very clear that he expected the requesting member to identity
exceptional planning reasons for why the application should go to the
Committee. He asked officers to make new Members aware of the
importance he placed on the expectation that they might be approached
on planning applications by Town Councils and stated that this matter
would be covered in Development Control training. It was
RECOMMENDED that the Clerk seek clarification on what
constituted “exceptional planning reasons”.
565. FLYPOSTING, GRAFFITI AND LITTER
It was reported that the Clerk had referred the Motiv8 banner to the
East Herts Enforcement Officer but had not yet identified the managing
agents of the Marsh Lane estate to contact them about the board. It
was reported that a Bugs Bunny stencil had been graffitied onto the
town bridge. It was
179
PLANNING COMMITTEE
RESOLVED to report this to East Herts Council.
The Mayor reported that the Chair of East Herts Council had
approached him about litter in East Herts and had suggested that the
Mayor organise a litter pick in Ware. It was noted that organisations in
the town such as Love Ware Live Ware and Ware in Bloom already
carried out litter picks and it was considered that it was not necessary
for the Mayor to organise a further litter pick.
566. MUSLEY SCHOOL SITE
Mr Perman addressed the meeting. This situation had been going on
for 7 ½ years. Everyone was concerned about the historic building.
There was a user ready to take it on which would be in the interest of
the community. It needed someone to take the initiative to get in and
get things moving. This was how the Ware Society had managed to get
the historic gazebos restored. This is what he was proposing when he
had asked the Mayor to act as an “honest broker”.
It was RESOLVED:
to write to Mr Cooper of HCC Estates asking him to meet
the Mayor on site and discuss the problems

to contact the Trust again to ask them to secure the
premises against pigeons

to contact EHC Conservation Officers again to ask them to
ensure that the listed building is made weather proof and
vermin proof.
567. ANY OTHER PLANNING MATTERS
None.
568. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Monday 14 March 2011 at 7.30 pm.
569. CLOSE OF MEETING
The meeting closed at 9.50 pm.
180