Latest: Mead Lane Housing Density increase rejected?

Published: 03/01/2025

---

Latest: Proposal to Increase Housing Density on Hert 2 Site, Mead Lane may be rejected.
Currently 380, an additional 66 proposed.

Background
The red border area of the plan below is yet to be built (image from the leaflet distributed to residents). The addition to this original plan is very difficult to visualise. It is not clear the significant effect of the extra 66 extra flats will be in the roof space on top of the existing  380 housing units. The key point is that these additions change the scale and impact of the original planning applicatiion.
Hertford Town Council is a statutory consultee. They are not the planning authority. The final decision lies with East Herts Council.

What is your view of the proposal?
How is this proposal relevant to Hertford’s local family community? 
Please contact the Chair with your concerns.

See comments from the Civic Society.

Below the full comments is the pdf of the planning advisor's document listing all the reasons for refusal.

Application Summary

Address: (HERT2) Land East Of Marshgate Drive Hertford Hertfordshire SG13 7AQ

Proposal:
Variation of Condition 53 (Approved Plans) of planning permission: 3/23/2034/VAR (Dated: 15/10/2024), as amended by planning reference: 3/23/1863/NMA, for a hybrid planning application comprising: Full planning permission for residential dwellings, up to 420 sqm for a gymnasium (Class E(d)), 70 sqm of residents co-working floorspace, car and cycle parking, access, open space, landscaping and associated works, improvements to Marshgate Drive and creation of a Spine Road in the Northern Sector; and Outline planning permission for the construction of employment floorspace (Use Class E(g)(iii)), car parking, landscaping and associated works (all matters reserved except access).

Proposed amendments to include: creation of 65 additional dwellings through utilising and extending roof spaces across all apartment buildings, relocation of residents gym from Building G to Building B, creation of 2 additional dwellings in Building G, loss of 1 dwelling in Building B, changes to internal layouts of apartment buildings, external elevation alterations to apartment buildings, amendments to landscaping and amendments to parking layout through utilising and extending roof spaces across all apartment buildings, relocation of residents gym from Building G to Building B, creation of 2 additional dwellings in Building G, loss of 1 dwelling in Building B, changes to internal layouts of apartment buildings, external elevation alterations to apartment buildings, amendments to landscaping and amendments to parking layout.

Case Officer: James Mead

Comments were submitted at 02/01/2025 4:09 PM from Civic Society Jan Goodeve.

The amendments in this application cannot be described as minor or as appropriate for dealing with via a variation to application, these are material changes of great significance to Hertford and should require a full planning application. Whilst the principal of development has already been established via the site's inclusion in the district plan the sheer scale of the changes to the proposed development of the site necessitate proper public consultation and scrutiny there having been no community involvement save for a leaflet claimed to have been delivered to residents evidence of which I have been unable to verify as all of whom I have approached cannot recall seeing it, there is nothing on the Tesco Community notice board and a meeting just prior to submission with a small group of councillors - this does not constitute public consultation. In the interests of transparency we feel that this application should be dealt with as if it were a new application, the public properly consulted and in due course presented to the Development Management Committee. If an application had come forward elsewhere for 65 homes it would have proper scrutiny so why are an additional 65 homes being treated a variation, it is incomprehensible and neither reasonable nor proportionate. If this a strategy which if this applicant is successful in pursuing are we likely to see it repeated elsewhere? It is a potentially a dangerous precedent to set.

There will undoubtedly be further adverse impact on the local highways, there only being one access road in and out and in particular on the viability of the industrial estate adjacent to the site which is already impacted by traffic delays. The sheer number of proposed additional properties also means there will be a corresponding impact on other local services and resources which residents should have the opportunity to comment on. Again there needs to be transparency regarding revised s106 obligations and the quantum of affordable housing to be provided. The design of the development is also something that should perhaps again have the attention of the design review panel as it did previously, this is a prominent riverside location of some sensitivity and changes to the look of the roof is material. In summary a most unsatisfactory way of proceeding and we respectfully request that this application be brought before committee in the usual way.

Major Application 3/24/2147/VAR Land East of Marshgate Drive (HERT2)  6th January 2025

Planning Advisor Report Here

---