Hertford Regional College - Ware Campus

[IGS]

The problem that is gripping many residents is the subtle but inevitable collisions of interest between the College (which wants as much cash as possible for the site) and East Herts Planning, which will grant the planning permission (which defines the value of the site to be sold).

The College Management Committee is presently chaired by Cllr Mike Carver, who has a significant and ongoing role at East Herts Council

Councillor Mike Carver
Much Hadham
Conservative
Executive Member for Strategic Planning and Transport and Chairman, District Plan Executive Panel

Larger planning decisions such as this are made by the Development Management Committee. Councillor Mike Carver is not a member of that committee.

http://online.eastherts.gov.uk/moderngo ... spx?ID=118

Strategic Planning (of which Cllr.Carver is an Executive Member) and Development Management are not the same thing.

Do the Councillors get extra “expenses” for being on different committees?

[Scottman]

Does that mean that another new planning application was submitted, corrected and updated from their first submission?
I'm probably wrong here, but I thought that if plans are resubmitted, all previous objections are reset to zero. That would mean that those who thought they objected first time round, wouldn't have had their say if they didn't also object the second time round.
Is that the way it works?

I'd also like to know who the other councillor was who, with Councillor Lester, supported the application?

As others have confirmed, these plans were seen as 'amended' so included in the earlier Application, although extra time was given (nb over Christmas/New Year!) for further public consultation. It appears that all comments on the earlier plans are still valid, but as the amended plans imply that comments have been taken into account (though largely ignored) I am personally cynical about their retained value. Like 'Ian' I am restating my views on the amended plans.

The 'other Councillor' was Mr Stephen Reed. He seconded Cllr Lester's proposition to accept the plans without making any contribution to the discussion beforehand (as was the case with the original plans in October). This time he was asked, by County Councillor Jeanette Taylor from the floor, to say something about his support. He did not put any one complete sentence together, and all of it was to criticise the proposal. As someone said it was actually a speech in rejection ....

Go figure ....

[Scottman]

Heard last night that our beloved planners have okayed the latest latest version of the College's residential plans, including a new eyesore block of flats, and are recommending approval to East Herts Councillors next month. Which, despite inadequate parking and overintensive development of the site, smacks of genius or worse.

[Martin]

I have just returned from a further meeting of the Ware Town Council planning committee where the proposed redevelopment of Ware college was again on the agenda, as there have been some minor adjustments to the plans, although nothing that addresses the well-documented concerns and objections to the scheme.

It was confirmed that East Herts Planning has formally recommended that the Development Control Committee at EHC approves the College's plans to redevelop the Ware site, and in particular the plans for the residential site in Scotts Road. The revised plans for the block of flats, and the minimum provision for parking are considered acceptable to the Planning Officers.

They have not accepted that the concerns and objections of local residents are valid, and one wonders whether the £250k bribe (Section 106 money) to HCC, and £75k bribe (Section 106 money) to EHC, may have had more influence than the many local residents whose neighbourhood is now destined to be blighted.

For the record, at tonight's meeting, the whole of the Ware Town Council Planning Committee was this time unanimous in rejecting the proposed redevelopment.

[Wareite1969]

What a joke ! So the two councillors in favour last week either hadn't done their homework or now want to join the No camp (once it has now been recommended) so they can say the records reflect their objection.

Bet the 2 bed flats have only one space each with a handful of visitors parking. You only need to visit the vicarage estate where some roads have flats, houses and maisonettes and you'll see the sometimes chaotic on street parking. Any property that could reasonably be occupied by 2 adults needs two spaces these days. Let's hope the council enforce the local parking restrictions but I bet it isn't long before someone argues the yellow lines aren't necessary.

CHAOS WILL REIGN !

[Scottman]

Well there will be 76 spaces for 50 homes, but the 28 flats will have precisely 28 spaces. Not even one visitor space. The flat dwellers will not be able to make use of the parking spaces in front of the 22 houses - these have approx. two spaces per house if you include their garages, which we have been promised will actually be big enough to house a modern day car.

Chaos it will indeed be, especially as there are parking restrictions on all surrounding roads to ward off commuters and students in the day and evening. I predict a substantial increase in revenue to East Herts from parking fines Maybe that's the point ,....

[ReDan]

Martin

The principle of a s106 contribution is that the developer pays a sum of money to help mitigate the effects of the development. To say it is a 'bribe' and that it trumps the views of local residents rather suggests to me that you think officers or those on the Planning Committee are corruptible. Before you make such accusations/assumptions, I suggest you back up your assertions with evidence.

You may not like the way this development is panning out, but the planners legally have to base their decisions - for better or worse - on published planning regulations and guidelines and to suggest otherwise rather smacks of desperation.

Now, I am not overly-impressed by the design either (though it is hardly replacing a thing of beauty), but one suspects the proximity to existing transport links and the fact that it is not in the Green Belt will be two deciding factors, not s106 payments.

[The Masked Woler]

Well there will be 76 spaces for 50 homes, but the 28 flats will have precisely 28 spaces. Not even one visitor space. The flat dwellers will not be able to make use of the parking spaces in front of the 22 houses - these have approx. two spaces per house if you include their garages, which we have been promised will actually be big enough to house a modern day car.

This is pretty much par for the course with developments these days - just wait until they start giving permission to convert the garages to rooms.

You're lucky they aren't building retirement homes - you get less than one space per dwelling on those.

[Scottman]

I am sure you are right, ReDan, however there is very little or no correlation between 'established transport links' and car ownership, even if the Government and Town Planners would wish it otherwise.

Your average mortgaged flat in this area will have not one but two 'economically active' people living in it - or potentially up to four if the second bedroom is sublet to tenants (or if the whole flat is bought on a buy to let basis). That produces a minimum of two cars per unit on average - and it could be 3 or 4!

This development is just overintensive and greedy - the block of flats has been pushed forward against the road by enough distance to allow one extra house, and the parking provision reduced to allow 1-2 extra houses. What on earth causes developers (and planners) to propose 28 flats and 22 houses rather than 28 flats and 19 houses ? Answer : about £300k gross profit, which neatly pays for the S106 payments (total £330k) which are notably NOT earmarked for Ware use only. The economic model of this development is overheated.

No-one I talk to locally is against the residential development in principle - they just don't want (to quote Cllr Lester) one eyesore replaced with another. It's so simplesx really. EHC would find making room for 3000 new homes in the area a lot easier if it agreed liveable solutions - both for new and existing residents.

[Wareite1969]

Martin

The principle of a s106 contribution is that the developer pays a sum of money to help mitigate the effects of the development. To say it is a 'bribe' and that it trumps the views of local residents rather suggests to me that you think officers or those on the Planning Committee are corruptible. Before you make such accusations/assumptions, I suggest you back up your assertions with evidence.

You may not like the way this development is panning out, but the planners legally have to base their decisions - for better or worse - on published planning regulations and guidelines and to suggest otherwise rather smacks of desperation.

Now, I am not overly-impressed by the design either (though it is hardly replacing a thing of beauty), but one suspects the proximity to existing transport links and the fact that it is not in the Green Belt will be two deciding factors, not s106 payments.

Frankly if this decision does follow planning guidelines on parking then the guidelines are outdated and not fit for purpose.

I repeat take a trip round the Vicarage Estate to see 2 bed flats mixed with houses and see just how many cars are parked outside of designated areas. I can GUARANTEE that 28 spaces for 28 2 bed flats is not even close to enough and the decision to grant the plan WILL be regretted down the line for that part of the development.