Yes those comments were made at the outset, and they did somewhat polarise opinion. That cannot much be undone.
The residents near the College will continue to try and ensure that one old eyesore is not dextrously replaced by another, bigger and closer to the road, just to give the College and the developers extra profit from a small parcel of land. This land should be retained for educational expansion in the future as more homes appear in the area.
Scottman wrote:.......... just to give the College and the developers extra profit from a small parcel of land. This land should be retained for educational expansion in the future as more homes appear in the area.
I don't see it's a question of extra profit for the college, as I understand the money is needed to complete the works due to the hole left when govt funding was withdrawn. As for educational expansion, there (apparently) isn't the money for the current improvements so that seems very unlikely.
Well, democracy happened. After an interesting debate, East Herts' Development Management Committee voted unanimously against the HRC development, citing the small provision for social housing (6% offered, 40% expected), the design and style of the block of flats and the lack of adequate parking.
Scottman wrote:... and the lack of adequate parking.
Interestingly this has featured in a number of refusals by the committee, despite Planning Officers' recommendations.
Maybe somebody needs to start asking questions of the planning officers ? If they are recommending plans that do not meet the minimum requirements then are they doing the job they are paid to do ?
At least some people had their head screwed on last night regarding parking but will the decision be appealed on the basis it was recommended and then voted against. Developers may claim there is doubt in the decision and they went ahead as officers advised they were correct in their plans ?
Over, I don't think so - they will either appeal (and EHDC will back down as previously) or put in revised plans until they find one acceptable.
As for parking the local plan says this:- (not sure where counts as Zone 2 but if the college counts then one space for a two bed flat is in accordance with the plan)
i) 1 bedroom dwellings/bedsits
ii) 2 bedroom dwellings
iii) 3 bedroom dwellings
iv) 4 or more bedroom dwellings
Spaces per dwelling
Zone 2 Elsewhere
0.75 1.25
1.00 1.50
1.50 2.25
2.00 3.00
There's a clear collision between the optimistic expectations of Government 'green' policies and Planners' hopes to curtail car use, and the realities of modern life. Two bed flats with just one space per flat just does not cut it, when typical observation is that at least two salaries are needed to afford the place, and most use cars to get to work (and, increasingly, while they are AT work). Proximity to the train and bus is somewhat relevant but not directly proportionate to use.
And, as others have said, 3 and 4 bed homes increasingly include grown up family with cars of their own.
Since there is literally nowhere else to park around the College, this was always going to be a significant issue once the Application was made.
Let's hope that developers take note and start to think through a better balance of homes and car spaces to land available.
Appeal ? Possibly - but there was £3.5 million of Government co-funding available for the College redevelopment until the end of February, provided the College got matched funding from its own reserves (ie sell the land) and the land sale was dependent on planning permission, so I think they may have missed this boat this year. No doubt they will be back with adapted plans. Most residents around the site would I think be ok with that, provided there was nothing overwhelming like the four storey block of flats and enough car parking for Real Life within its own development.
Masked WoLer - the College site is Zone 3. The ratios you have quoted are maxima not minima, and there is scope to reduce these maxima provisions where appropriate. It is in that wriggle room space these problems start.
The Masked Woler wrote:Over, I don't think so - they will either appeal (and EHDC will back down as previously) or put in revised plans until they find one acceptable.
As for parking the local plan says this:- (not sure where counts as Zone 2 but if the college counts then one space for a two bed flat is in accordance with the plan)
i) 1 bedroom dwellings/bedsits
ii) 2 bedroom dwellings
iii) 3 bedroom dwellings
iv) 4 or more bedroom dwellings
Spaces per dwelling
Zone 2 Elsewhere
0.75 1.25
1.00 1.50
1.50 2.25
2.00 3.00
The college is in Zone 3 (so Elsewhere on these numbers) and can only be reduced from these numbers if non residential development is involved (ie Offices or shops). Bearing in mind these are in the councils own plan I fail to see how the plans were recommended by their own officers.
Let's hope sanity will prevail, a more acceptable development is proposed which matches the colleges, developers and local residents expectations. At no point has anyone opposed developing that site only the details of what the development looks like. Maybe a revised block of flats, reduced number of houses to increase parking provision and a greater number of social houses, will allow everyone to move on.
