Discover Hertford Online Forum

I see that for a second time this plan has been unanimously rejected.

"APPLAUSE rang out when a proposed retirement community for Hertford was unanimously turned down by East Herts councillors. Members of the development management committee did not even debate the plan, which included an 80-bed care home, up to 96 assisted living units and leisure amenities at the former Brickfields off Cole Green Way."

http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/H ... 223839.htm" target="_blank

The plans appeared to be little changed from the original application last year. The developer steadfastly refuses to accept that it's a greenfield site and judging by some of the correspondence on the planning website has been tenacious in presenting his case.

Previous discussion at
http://www.hertford.net/yoursay/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6747" target="_blank

Planning application details at
http://online.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/ ... 14/0060/OP" target="_blank

greenfield? do you mean greenbelt?

Or is greenfield yet some other term in our tangled web of planning?

Are they arguing its brownfield then because it was previously industrial?

codek2 wrote:greenfield? do you mean greenbelt?

Or is greenfield yet some other term in our tangled web of planning?

Are they arguing its brownfield then because it was previously industrial?

Apologies - yes, I mean green belt (although greenfield is a recognised planning term) - http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/genera ... glossary/g" target="_blank

Yes, the developer was arguing strongly that it was brownfield land.

is it not clear cut then? i thought greenbelt was well defined?

pah.

Where the Sartos go to retire now? Time to put our names down for the dementia farm next to Richard Hale.

codek2 wrote:is it not clear cut then? i thought greenbelt was well defined?

pah.

As I understand it, it's green belt by definition, not by designation. The developer has sought (at some length) to question that definition.

The developer claims it is brownfield land as it has a history of industrial development. The council's view is that it has long been reclaimed by nature and is now secondary woodland, with little evidence of it's former use.

The nearest thing I can find to a "definitive" map that demonstrates the site's green belt status is from 2009
http://eastherts-consult.limehouse.co.u ... 1520790588" target="_blank

The developer has now resubmitted a third, virtually identical plan, the only difference being revised access works. None of the other reasons for refusal have been materially addressed.

Due to the fact that this third plan almost the same as the one previously submitted (and little different from the first application) the council have refused to accept it.

"... the local planning authority has exercised it's power under Section 70A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to decline to determine your application ... the proposal seeks permission for a similar development to that refused by the Council on two previous occasions within the last two years"

Interesting to note that rather than appeal previous decisions (to the Planning Inspectorate), the applicant is just submitting repeated planning applications. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this strategy.

The developer has now submitted a fourth planning application. On the face of it, this is yet again virtually the same as the last three applications.

I think the difference this time is that the design for the access road has changed enough for the environment agency to drop their objection based on flood risks being increased.

Just seen a tweet from Jane Sartin as below:

Jane Sartin ‏@JaneSartin 10 minutes ago
Application to build retirement complex on green belt land by Cole Green Way unanimously rejected by committee. #Hertford #Hertingfordbury

I've also copied her earlier objection.

[img][/img]