PLANNING COMMITTEE
WARE TOWN COUNCIL
A meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE was held in the Priory Hall, Ware
Priory, Ware on Monday 7 October 2013 at 7.30 pm when the following
business was transacted.
PRESENT
Councillors I Devonshire (in the Chair), P Ballam, S Reed
ATTENDING
J Rowlinson (Town Clerk); County Cllr Andrews; members
of the public
193. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Cllr’s R Lester and
R Standley.
194. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Cllr Devonshire had a disclosable pecuniary interest in item 196
applications 158 and 159 and left the room for discussion of these
items.
195. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 2 September were received,
approved and adopted and signed by the Chairman as a true record.
196. CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Application 158 Site adjacent, 80 Berkeley Close, Ware 3/13/1469/FP demolition of garages and erection of a pair of two storey one bedroom
houses with associated parking and landscaping. Provision of 5
replacement parking 26 spaces.
Cllr Devonshire left the room this item as he had a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
Mr Rist addressed the meeting on behalf of residents of Berkeley Close
and summarised residents’ objections.
 If the scheme went ahead the loss of garages would mean a loss
of up to 12 parking spaces.
 The 5 new spaces would be on amenity land
 Residents would lose amenity land
65
PLANNING COMMITTEE
 Parking would be communal and not allocated
 Parking would be up against windows causing pollution
 Photos in the application were over 5 years old and the parking
situation had changed since then
 The parking assessment had been carried out at 2.30 am
 The existing garages were combined with sheds and the sheds
would also be lost
 The houses would be opposite existing flats and the ground floor
flats would lose light
 The distance between the new buildings and the existing flats
would only be 11 metres
 The houses would extend onto the amenity land for the flats which
would affect families living in the area.
It was noted that the meeting was inquorate and the two councillors
present agreed to put the following RECOMMENDATION to the Council
meeting on 21 October:
That Ware Town Council objects to the application on the following
grounds: The proximity of the proposed development to existing dwellings
would constitute overdevelopment
 Loss of amenity open space
 The loss of amenity open space would be detrimental to the street
scene
 The proposal fails to compensate for loss of parking from the
garages in an area which is already congested for parking.
 The proposed development would be too close to existing dwellings
(11 metres) resulting in loss of light to existing residents
 Access for the emergency services would be difficult.
The Town Clerk would let residents know when the application would
go to East Herts Development Management Committee.
Application 158/13 Former Co-op Site, Star Street, Ware 3/13/0513/FP,
demolition of existing buildings and erection of 1 no. 1 bedroomed flat, 4
no. 2 bedroomed flats, 9 no. 2 bedroomed houses, 4 no. retail units with
A1, A2, B1(a) B1(b), B1(c) use and associated car parking and
landscaping.
Cllr Devonshire left the room this item as he had a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
66
PLANNING COMMITTEE
It was noted that the meeting was inquorate and the two councillors
present agreed to put the following RECOMMENDATION to the Council
meeting on 21 October:
That Ware Town Council has no objection to the application but is
concerned about insufficient parking provision.
Application numbers 160/13 – 173/13 were before the Committee. It
was
RESOLVED that comments on Application Nos. 160/13 – 173/13
as scheduled and attached to the Minutes be submitted to the
Director of Planning, East Herts District Council.
197. ASDA STORE 3/10/0386/FP PARKING MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS
The proposals had been circulated. It was
RESOLVED that the proposals were acceptable.
198. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DETERMINED TO DATE
Received and noted.
199. APPEALS
It was noted that the appeal for The Roebuck Hotel, Baldock Street
3/13/0333/FP would be determined by the informal hearing procedure.
The Town Council had already submitted the following comments:
Ware Town Council objects on the grounds of loss of hotel, loss of
amenity, loss of employment and overdevelopment. Concerns re
number of properties accessing and egressing onto Watton Road.
200. S106 AGREEMENTS
Nothing further to report.
201. UPDATE ON EAST HERTS DISTRICT PLAN
i)
District Planning Bulletin No. 10 had been circulated and was
noted. Cllr Andrews stated that with schools coming out of local
authority control, the County Council was now the provider of last
resort for education which was making for planning future places
difficult.
67
PLANNING COMMITTEE
ii)
Strategic Land Availability Assessment Briefing Note had been
circulated and was noted.
iii)
Minutes of East Herts Association of Parish & Town Councils
meeting of 20 September had been circulated and were noted.
202. NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
A progress report was given.
203. FLYPOSTING, GRAFFITI AND LITTER
Cllr Andrews stated that flyposted posters had not been removed by the
Town Council. The Town Clerk asked councillors to report any
flyposting to the Town Council office so this could be removed as the
Town Council did not have sufficient resources to patrol the town.
204. MUSLEY SCHOOL SITE
At the last meeting it was reported that an application had been made to
East Herts Council for Musley School to be included on the List of
Assets of Community Value. The effect of this would be that if the site
was offered for sale there would be a delay of 6 months but if it was
already owned by the developer then work could start. It was
RESOLVED to take this item off the agenda.
205. BROADMEADS FOOTPATH CLOSURE
It was RESOLVED to take this item off the agenda.
206. RIVER – COMMON WHARF
The Town Clerk was still corresponding with Canal and River Trust
regarding the mooring.
207. HIGHWAY MATTERS
(i)
Traffic Calming Wulfrath Way
Cllr Andrews reported that Highways had found no justification for this.
68
PLANNING COMMITTEE
(ii)
20mph Speed Zones
It was RESOLVED to respond as follows:1. Should 20mph areas be self enforcing? How can HCC ensure all the
locality where a request is received actually want a 20mph zone. –
Canvass opinion of residents.
2. How effective are 20mph areas in relation to road safety? They are
effective in reducing deaths and injuries from accidents as death is less
likely to occur from an impact at 20 mph than 30 mph.
3. What are the benefits of 20 mph areas:
a) in areas where speeds are already low? reducing deaths and injuries
from accidents as death is less likely to occur from an impact at 20 mph
than 30 mph.
b) in areas where the speeds have been reduced? reducing deaths and
injuries from accidents as death is less likely to occur from an impact at
20 mph than 30 mph.
208. ANY OTHER PLANNING MATTERS
None.
209. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Monday 28 October 2013 at 7.30 pm.
210. CLOSE OF MEETING
The meeting closed at 9.40 pm.
69