3/04/1603/FP – Laying out of car parking and construction of new access to form park and ride facility at land at Bishop’s Stortford Football Club, Woodside, Bishop’s Stortford for Bishop’s Stortford Football Club Date of Receipt: 02.08.04 Type: Full Parish: BISHOP’S STORTFORD RECOMMENDATION That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons :- 1. Inappropriate development within Metropolitan Green Belt and therefore

contrary to Hertfordshire County Structure Plan Policy 5, Adopted East Hertfordshire Local Plan Policy RA2, and the East Hertfordshire Local Plan Second Review Re-Deposit Version –Draft Version (November 2004) Policies GBC2 and GBC3.

2. The proposed development for Park and Ride facilities would contribute to

the coalescence of Bishop’s Stortford with surrounding development to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy RA2 of the East Hertfordshire Local Plan and Policies GBC2 and GBC3 of the East Hertfordshire Local Plan Second Review Re-Deposit Version – Draft Version (November 2004).

3. The development may lead to the use of the site for alternative Stansted

Airport parking which is already planned for or provided at the airport. The development would therefore be contrary to the aims of Policy 37 of the Hertfordshire Structure Plan Review 1991-2011, which seeks to ensure no employment land for airport related development is allocated in Hertfordshire.

4. If permitted, the proposal would likely mean that additional car parking that

may be required by football club on match days will not be accommodated on site and will park on the surrounding road networks causing nuisance to the detriment of local and residential amenity. This would undermine the parking management and transport strategy for the town.

5. The parking layout as shown on the submitted drawings (13362-22K5 –

SK32A) clearly demonstrates spaces which abut a number of mature trees, subject to TPOs. If permitted, these spaces with their hard surfacing works could cause damage to these important row of trees and therefore would be contrary to Policy RA9 of the East Hertfordshire District Plan, and Policy ENV16 of the East Hertfordshire Local Plan Second Review Re-Deposit Version – Draft Version (November 2004).

(160304FP.PB) 1.0 Background

3/04/1603/FP 1.1 This application was deferred at the Development Control meeting held on

the 10 November 2004 to allow further information to be submitted by the applicants.

1.2 Letters that had been received from the agent and applicant prior to the

Committee meeting were verbally reported to Members. Copies of these letters are appended to this report.

1.3 A copy of the officer’s report to the 10 November Committee meeting is

also appended for information about the site and application description, representations received, and general considerations of the scheme.

1.4 In summary, the agent referred to a comparison between the park and ride

scheme at Bishop’s Stortford Football Club, and the park and ride scheme that has been granted planning permission at the adjacent M&D site located to the west of the football ground.

1.5 Since the November Committee meeting whilst the agent has indicated that

they would submit additional supporting information, at the time of writing this report no such supporting statement has been submitted, even though officers have contacted the agent indicating the deadline for information to be submitted.

1.6 Members should also note that since the November Committee the Council

is currently going through a consultation process on the East Hertfordshire Local Plan Second Review Re-Deposit Version – Draft Version (November 2004). The policies of the Re-Deposit Local Plan (Draft Version) is therefore a material consideration in determining this application.

1.7 The relevant policies of the Re-Deposit Local Plan (Draft Version) are

policies GBC2, GBC3 and ENV16. Policies GBC2 and GBC3 relate to the Council’s in principle Green Belt policies. Policy ENV16 seeks to preserve protected TPO trees.

1.8 The policy stance in the Re-Deposit Local Plan (Draft Version) in respect of

this application is generally the same as guidance contained within the Adopted Local Plan.

2.0 Considerations 2.1 The previous report to the November Development Control Committee

meeting outlines the officer’s recommendation for refusal, specifying reasons given and concerns that are raised about the proposal at the football club site.

3/04/1603/FP 2.2 This report provides a comparison between the football club site and the

adjacent M&D site. The report also considers the additional information submitted by the agent.

2.3 Comparison between BSFC site and the M&D site 2.4 Planning permission was granted on the M&D site for a total of 465 car

parking spaces. This planning permission granted is subject to a Section 106 planning obligation that restricts the use of the site to long stay Season Ticket Holders. The Section 106 planning obligation also restricts the use of the site solely for park and ride into Bishop’s Stortford Town Centre and shall not be used in any way for parking in relation to Stansted Airport.

2.5 The Bishop’s Stortford Football Club seeks permission for 232 parking

spaces. The Football Club’s park and ride proposal would serve Bishop’s Stortford Town Centre and Station, and serve Stansted Station. This relates to the Station at Stansted Airport and it is therefore an application for airport related parking.

2.6 With regard to issue of Stansted Airport Related Development in

Hertfordshire, the application submitted for park and ride at the football club does not comply with the County Council’s Structure Plan policy 37, which considers that there is ample provision at the airport at present and there is ample land available within the airport boundary to meet future forecast growth in demand.

2.7 There is therefore not a justified need at present or near future for the park

and ride facility at the football club site, which would provide parking for the airport users.

2.8 The planning permission granted at the M&D site will not provide a park

and ride to Stansted Airport. There was therefore not considered to be a conflict of policy in respect of this issue.

2.9 In respect of issue of need for the park and ride facility at the M&D site, the

following very special circumstances were outlined to Members in the officer’s report:

• A detailed independent survey had been carried out by the authority in

respect of parking for the town. This survey work has identified that there are currently insufficient parking spaces in the town centre.

3/04/1603/FP

• Priority has been given to shoppers in the town centre in accordance with national policies (PPG6), leading to a deficit of long term parking within the town.

• There is pressure from the town centre developments to provide additional temporary parking spaces during construction.

• The feasibility study carried out for the development identified the

application site as the most viable site. 2.10 It was therefore demonstrated at the M&D site that there is a genuine need

for the proposed park and ride facility for the town centre and that very special circumstances exist. On this basis and subject to the necessary controls imposed restricting use, the proposal was considered to be compliant with the requirements of PPG2 for controlling development in the Green Belt.

2.11 The original planning statement submitted with the football club’s park and

ride application refers to the independent survey identified a total need for 564 long stay parking spaces up until 2011 for the town centre.

2.12 The cumulative total of parking spaces granted permission at the M&D site

(465 spaces), and parking spaces proposed at the football club site (232 spaces), amounts to 697 spaces.

2.13 The proposed additional parking spaces at the football club site, in addition

to what has already been provided at the M&D site, significantly goes beyond what has been identified by an independent survey.

2.14 Whereas it has been robustly demonstrated that there is a genuine need for

town centre parking at the M&D site, this has not been demonstrated for the proposal at the football club.

2.15 The previous officer’s report outlines other reasons for refusing permission

for the Bishop’s Stortford Football Club, relating to harmful visual impact of the development within the Green Belt. Members are also reminded of the adhoc nature of the football club’s park and ride scheme located around a football ground, which adds to the harmful impact on the character of the area.

2.16 The proposed parking layout for the football club’s park and ride is spread

around the site, and crammed in on land to the west and south of the football ground. This cramped form of development which extends around the perimeter of the site, is considered to be harmful to character of the area.

3/04/1603/FP 2.17 It should also be noted that in respect of the appeal against the

enforcement notice served by the Council related to the unauthorised airport related parking at the site on the land surrounding the football ground, the appeal inspector made the following comments:

“I share the Council’s view that the extensive areas of parking on the site, in which vehicles are placed close together, has a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Although the site is screened to some extent in views from the north and east by hedgerows and embankments, the character of the present use clearly differs from that indicated in the original scheme because of the extent and intensive nature of the parking areas. The parking is also on a full-time basis, unlike the transitory nature of parking associated with specific events such as football games. I agree with the Council that the development conflicts with one of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt identified in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2, i.e. that of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. In my opinion the continued existence of the present parking areas would contribute to the coalescence of Bishop’s Stortford with development around and to the east of Junction 8 of the M11 to an unacceptable degree.”

2.18 In respect of this application concerns have also been raised about the

harmful impact to the row of protected TPO mature trees along the west side of the site as a result of the proximity of spaces maximising the parking area of the site. Whilst an appeal inspector previously considered that the impact on trees could be mitigated by way of condition to reduce the impact on trees, it is considered the layout of parking spaces shown close to the base of the trees would be harmful to the trees and that there is sufficient grounds to refuse the application based on the adverse impact on the protected trees.

2.19 The previous report to the November DC Committee raised concerns about

the additional car parking that may be required by the football club on match days would not be accommodated on site. Concerns raised by officers to this lack of parking on match days would lead to parking on surrounding roads causing nuisance to the detriment of local and residential amenities.

2.20 The proposal at the football club, which comprises a parking layout that is

crammed around three sides of a football ground, resulting in a number of harmful implications outlined above, represents an inappropriate form of development.

3/04/1603/FP 2.21 The park and ride scheme at the M&D site is a well laid out parking facility,

compact in its shape and form. There are no adverse implications for the row of protected TPO trees as a result of the M&D park and ride facility.

2.22 It was therefore considered by Members that the park and ride facility at the

M&D site would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the locality.

2.23 The adhoc layout of parking crammed in and spread around the football

ground at the Bishop’s Stortford Football Club site is considered to be harmful to the character and appearance of the locality.

3.0 Conclusions 3.1 In addition to the considerations of the previous officer’s report to the 10

November DC Committee meeting, this report has provided a comparison of the park and ride schemes at the football club site and the adjacent M&D site.

3.2 Within the Green Belt (which both sites are located) there is a requirement

under Central Government advice (PPG2), and contained within the policies of the Structure Plan and Local Plan, to demonstrate a need for a park and ride facility.

3.3 Whereas it was demonstrated that there was a robust and genuine need for

the park and ride facility at the M&D site, it has not been demonstrated that there is justification to allow the additional parking and ride facility at the football club site.

3.4 It has also been outlined in this report the harmful visual impact of the

“crammed-in” park and ride facility proposed at the football club site. 3.5 It is therefore considered the proposed park and ride facility proposed at

the football club constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt, and does not comply with Development Plan policies.

3.6 The applicant has also not demonstrated any justified exceptional

circumstances as to why permission should be granted as a departure to Development Plan policy.

3.7 Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the

reasons specified at the head of this report.

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP 3/04/1603/FP – Laying out of car parking and construction of new access to form park and ride facility at land at Bishop’s Stortford Football Club, Woodside, Bishop’s Stortford for Bishop’s Stortford Football Club Date of Receipt: 02.08.04 Type: Full Parish: BISHOP’S STORTFORD RECOMMENDATION That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons :- 6. Inappropriate development within Metropolitan Green Belt and therefore

contrary to Hertfordshire County Structure Plan Policy 5 and East Hertfordshire District Plan Policy RA2.

7. The proposed development for Park and Ride facilities would contribute to

the coalescence of Bishop’s Stortford with surrounding development to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy RA2 of the East Hertfordshire Local Plan.

8. The development may lead to the use of the site for alternative Stansted

Airport parking which is already planned for or provided at the airport. The development would therefore be contrary to the aims of Policy 37 of the Hertfordshire Structure Plan Review 1991-2011, which seeks to ensure no employment land for airport related development is allocated in Hertfordshire.

9. If permitted, the proposal would likely mean that additional car parking that

may be required by football club on match days will not be accommodated on site and will park on the surrounding road networks causing nuisance to the detriment of local and residential amenity. This would undermine the parking management and transport strategy for the town.

10. The parking layout as shown on the submitted drawings (13362-22K5 –

SK32A) clearly demonstrates spaces which abut a number of mature trees, subject to TPOs. If permitted, these spaces with their hard surfacing works could cause damage to these important row of trees and therefore would be contrary to Policy RA9 of the East Hertfordshire District Plan.

(160304FP.PB)

3/04/1603/FP 2.0 Background 1.9 The application site is shown on the Ordnance Survey extract attached to

this report. 1.10 The site is located on the eastern edge of Bishop’s Stortford between the

A120 and A1250 Dunmow Road, close to Junction 8 of the M11. To the west is a civic amenity site and an area of land owned by M and D Developments that is used for car parking. Beyond this is the Woodside Industrial Estate which provides access to the site. The major feature of the site is the football ground which includes a stand, open terracing, changing rooms, club/function room and car parking areas.

1.11 The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt and is also bounded

on its north, eastern and southern sides by further land within the Green Belt.

2.0 The Proposal 2.24 The current application seeks planning permission for 232 spaces, 218

located west of the existing club, whilst 14 are proposed to east of the existing car park to the north of the football pitch. This level of car parking proposal is in addition to 160 cars and 4 coaches spaces granted by the Secretary of State, following a call-in public inquiry in 1996 (ref: 3/95/1133/FP).

2.25 Vehicular access to the site will be via Woodside and the existing Access

Road. The internal road entrance will be modified to give the park and ride facility priority and to provide clear segregation of the two facilities.

2.26 The car park will consist of 2 clearly defined areas linked via a short section

of road in the southwest corner of the ground, and will be surfaced drained and clearly laid out as indicated on the submitted plans.

2.27 Pedestrian access to the adjacent park and ride facility at the M&D site to

the west of the application site, will be provided via a dedicated footpath which will be located along the western edge. This footpath will provide a safe link to the approved bus route, which runs through the adjacent site.

2.28 Included with the application a supporting statement has been submitted, a

copy of which is appended to this report. In summary the supporting statement concludes the following:

- There is an acknowledged need for additional long stay parking in

Bishop’s Stortford at present.

3/04/1603/FP

- There is support for Park and Ride proposal in other studies commissioned by the Council.

- There is support in planning policy in the development plan, particularly SSP Policy 25 and Local Plan policy M7.

- The effect of material considerations is to reinforce the presumption in favour of development which accords with the development plan.

- There is no objection to the proposal on the basis of inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Para 3.17 of PPG13 makes this clear. The Council’s assessment of the use of the adjacent for same use is equally appropriate in this case. It makes it clear that 5 tests in para 3.17 are satisfied.

- The use of the car park for a Park and Ride service is sustainable in line with PPG13.

- An Inspector in a previous appeal decision elsewhere decided that the continued existence of a football club was in public interest. In the same way the retention of BSFC is in public interest and its need to generate income from the Park and Ride operations should be considered a legitimate planning objective.

2.29 The applicant has also submitted a transport assessment, which indicates

that there is sufficient spare highway capacity at the junction of Woodside and Dunmow Road to accommodate the increased vehicle movements. The assessment also seeks to demonstrate that the existing bus service network would provide frequent links between the site and the town centre, which can easily be access from the proposed park and ride.

2.30 The transport assessment carried out assumes that the adjacent M&D site

for around 460 spaces is fully implemented. During the peak hours the assessment indicates that the maximum RFC (Reference Flow of Capacity) would be 0.80 predicted for the am peak hours, and that RFC values below 0.85 are acceptable.

2.31 The transport assessment states that the site is well served by existing bus

services, a total of 86 buses pass the site each weekday. The applicant proposes that if consent is granted for this proposal, it would be sensible to talk to the bus operators of existing services and representatives of the adjacent M&D facility to discuss changes to the existing bus services to maximise the use of both park and rides. The assessment goes on to state that whilst a dedicated Park and Ride bus service could be provided, it would be more beneficial for the park and ride bus income to be used to support and enhance if necessary the existing bus routes and reduce the reliance on subsidies.

3.0 Planning History

3/04/1603/FP 3.8 The application site has a long planning history, the initial planning

permission for the football club being granted by the Secretary of State following a call-in public inquiry in 1996 (ref 3/95/1133/FP). The submitted scheme showed the provision of a new pitch, the erection of a clubhouse/stand terracing, changing rooms, training areas and a car parking area to the north of the ground for 160 cars and 4 coaches. To the east was a small overspill parking area along with a grass training area. The scheme also showed a smaller pitch and further parking areas on the M and D land to the west, but that element of proposal was never undertaken. There is no suggestion in the Secretary of State’s decision, that parking area would be used for any purpose other than in connection with the football club. Of relevance to this current application are the following decisions.

3.9 In June 1999, an application for planning permission (3/99/0905/FP) was

received for additional car parking (201 additional spaces) for the club on the western part of the site, previously identified for a football pitch and the smaller (56 space) car park. The football club argued that there was a significant shortfall of parking on match days and produced a letter from the Hertfordshire Constabulary confirming the fact that kerbside parking was creating problems on those days, and supporting the club’s request for additional parking.

3.10 The Director of Planning and Property recommended refusal of this

application. He recommended that there were no justifiable reasons for granting yet more parking in this Green Belt location, particularly given the Secretary of States decision (and Inspectors conclusions) and the conflict with and harm to the Green Belt and its objectives to prevent settlement coalescence. Members of the committee, however, resolved to grant planning permission. Although it was accepted that the proposal conflicted with Green Belt policy, the Committee accepted that the football club’s need for parking constituted a very special circumstance, which outweighed the Green Belt policy presumption against inappropriate development.

3.11 In granting planning permission, however, Members were concerned that, if

not properly controlled, the site could be used for other parking purposes which would not constitute very special circumstances and would not likely have been granted planning permission. The permission was therefore granted subject to various conditions. These conditions included a restriction on the use of the additional car park only when football matches are taking place and then only between 08.00 hours to 24.00 hours.

3.12 The decision notice in respect of the 201 additional spaces (3/99/0905/FP)

is dated 20 October 1999. Approximately 4 weeks later, however, application 3/99/1749/FP was submitted. This sought permission for a park

3/04/1603/FP

and ride facility on this western part of the site (submitted by BSFC Ltd) and included the deletion of condition 4 on 3/99/0905/FP. Further identical applications were submitted under references 3/00/1398/FP and 3/00/1515/FL again for a park and ride facility on this part of the site, but for a temporary 5 year period only. The park and ride facility proposed was principally for travel into the town centre. It was not clear what service, if any, was proposed to Stansted Airport.

3.13 Application ref: 3/99/1749/FP was refused planning permission on 26th July

2000. Subsequent appeals were lodged against the refusal of 3/99/1749/FP and against the non-determination of 3/00/1398/FL.

In dismissing the appeals the Inspector (paragraph 10) noted that:-

“In granting the permission the Council regarded the need for additional parking for the football club as an exceptional circumstance that justified harming the Green Belt in this way. The proposal would involve use of the additional parking area on a full time basis rather than occasionally as allowed for under the terms of the permission. Consequently in overall terms the impact of the park and ride on the openness of the Green Belt would be significantly greater. For this reason I do not accept that the permission granted justifies permission being granted for a park and ride scheme on either a permanent or temporary basis, or that there is any sound reason for deleting condition 4 from the permission granted under reference 3/99/0950/FP.”

3.14 In November 2001 an application was submitted for allocated business

parking with overnight lorry parking on the western part of the site (now outside the appeal site). This application was, however, withdrawn.

3.15 The current application is for a layout of car parking and construction of

new access to form Park and Ride facility, for 232 car parking spaces, in addition to those serving the existing football club. The Park and Ride facility is to serve the town centre, Bishop’s Stortford Station and Stansted Station. This application makes no reference to the 201 additional spaces granted on 20 October 1999, for match days. The location of these 201 spaces was on the western side of the football pitch. The submitted drawings show parking on the approved next door M&D site, with a clear boundary. However no reference is made to the overspill parking required for the match days.

4.0 Consultations

3/04/1603/FP 4.1 The Highway Authority make the following comments:

“Following a study carried out by Ove Arup & Partners in late 2003, it was concluded that the case for Park & Ride in Bishops Stortford is marginal and it is unlikely that demand will justify more than one full scale Park & Ride proposal at the present time. The neighbouring site to west of the Football Club was identified at the best in terms of land availability and market assessment and planning permission has since been granted for a 468 space car park. However, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 makes it clear that the approval of Park & Ride development in the Green Belt at a particular location does not create any presumption in favour of future expansion of that site. Given the current uncertainty regarding the future success of this scheme, no supporting evidence has been submitted that these additional 232 spaces are either warranted or necessary. Consequently, this development is considered contrary to national Planning Policy Guidance 13 : Transport.

The Applicant’s Supporting Statement makes it clear that the

intention would be for the Park & Ride facility to serve both the town centre and Stansted Airport. This Authority will object to any proposal which involves the provision of off-site parking for Stansted Airport and this intention is clearly set out both Policy 37 and paragraph 334 of the Structure Plan Review 1991 - 2011. The British Airports Authority (BAA) Stansted have long been conscious of the need to be a good neighbour in relation to long standing Local Authority concerns that car parking should be absorbed within the perimeter of the airport. As a result, a hierarchy of parking services has been developed within the confines of the airport including adequate short, medium and long stay parking facilities. The need for off-airport parking provision is unnecessary and contrary to the BAA’s Surface Access Strategy.

Finally, this Authority has an adopted Bishops Stortford

Transportation Plan which aims to provide a balanced approach to transport and makes provision for pedestrians, cyclists, passenger transport and the private car. Parking management is a fundamental issue for residents in the town and sufficient car parking is needed to maintain the vitality of the town. Decriminalised parking management across the East Hertfordshire District is due for implementation during early 2005 including controlled parking zones for residents along with a rationalisation of short and long stay parking provision in the town. The allocation of parking space within the confines of the town for airport parking

3/04/1603/FP

therefore conflicts with the parking management and transport strategy for the town.

In conclusion, the Highway Authority recommends that the planning application is REFUSED on highway grounds.”

4.2 Uttlesford District Council comments:

“No doubt you will be considering the comments of the Planning Inspector in dismissing the appeal against the enforcement notice relating to airport Park and Ride operations on 30 October 2003. The Council would oppose any dedicated Park and Ride facility being provided to Stansted Airport.”

4.3 Essex County Council comment: The Council in their capacity as Highway

Authority concur with the conclusions of Hertfordshire County Council as set out in Para 4.1 of this report.

4.4 Hertfordshire County Council’s Archaeological Significant No. 274, as

designated in the Local Plan. Archaeological investigations in advance of the construction of the football ground and the household waste site recovered extensive evidence of bronze age and iron age settlement activity on the site. Evidence included buildings, ditches, pottery and cremation burials. In accordance with advice contained within PPG16 (paragraphs 21 and 22) and the Local Plan policy on archaeology, I recommend that the applicant should provide further archaeological information regarding the impact of the proposal on the historic environment before the application is determined.

5.0 Town Council Representations 5.1 None received at the time of writing the report.

3/04/1603/FP 6.0 Other Representations 6.1 42 consultation letters were sent out to the adjoining neighbours. Two

responses plus a letter from BAA Stansted have been received. Main points arising from neighbourhood response are:

- The proposed hours of operation are excessive. More reasonable

hours are Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm. - Detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the adjoining occupiers. - Issues of access for buses from Dunmow Road. - Concerns over additional traffic arising from combined parking

provision arising from the proposal and the next door M&D site. 6.2 The BAA Stansted letter is appended to this report. 7.0 Considerations 7.1 The main planning issues concerning the case are:

(i) The principle of development, especially its appropriateness in terms of National Planning Policy Guidances and the Development Plan.

(ii) Assessment of parking need and demand. (iii) Comparison of this proposal with the adjacent M and D Park and

Ride approval. (iv) Other material consideration.

7.2 Planning Policies and Government Guidance. 7.3 PPG1 (General Policy and Principles) at paragraph 40 restates Section

54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to the effect the planning application should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

7.4 The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined in the Structure

Plan (Policy 5) and the East Hertfordshire Local Plan (Policy RA2). 7.5 Within the Metropolitan Green Belt there is a presumption against

inappropriate development and as stated in Policy 5 of the Structure Plan and reiterated in Policy RA2 of the Local Plan, permission will not be given, except in very special circumstances for purposes other than those detailed in PPG2.

7.6 PPG2 goes on to define the types of development which are considered

appropriate in the Green Belt. The use of this site for a non-ancillary

3/04/1603/FP

parking facility does not fall within any of these stated types. Paragraph 3.12 states that the making of material changes of the use of land are inappropriate development unless they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. In this case, however, the proposed change of use does not, in the local planning authority’s opinion, maintain openness and it does conflict with the purposes of including the land in the Green Belt.

7.7 In terms of openness, the proposed use of the site for long term parking

results in a significantly greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing and the smaller approved parking areas which would have been used only occasionally. The ‘packed parking’ surrounding all the areas around the football pitch introduces extensive amount of hard surfaces usually found in an urban environment. This creates a “hard edge” to the site which detracts from the openness of the Green Belt in this location.

7.8 Furthermore, the parking areas will be lit all through the night for security

and operational reasons and this again impacts upon the openness and character of the Green Belt at night. This impact again exceeds that which the Inspector considered acceptable in granting permission for the football club use. Although lighting was approved for the football club use, under reference 3/95/1133/FP, this was subject to the following condition:-

“Floodlighting shall not be used except when the pitches are being used for matches and organised training, and in any event, the floodlighting shall not be used after 2230 hours.”

This condition was clearly imposed by the Inspector in order both to limit the impact of the proposal on the rural character of the area and to protect residential amenity. The proposed lighting all night increases the impact of the development on the surrounding area and thereby detracts from the character and openness of the Green Belt in this location.

7.9 Although the Supporting Statement accompanying the planning application

states that the provision of 232 parking spaces would be for a Park and Ride facility to serve the town centre, Bishop’s Stortford Station and Stansted Station, the history of the site in terms of using the existing site for airport related parking cannot be ignored. Already there is a current enforcement action on this matter. Any airport related parking would be detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt, which is also supported by the Inspector’s view when dealing with the proposed park and ride scheme for the west of the site (3/99/1749/FP & 3/00/1398/FP). Although, in that case, he accepted that there was an extant permission for some parking already on the site, he noted that its increased use for a park and ride

3/04/1603/FP

scheme, would be detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt. 7.10 The local planning authority would similarly contend that any use of this site

for airport related parking is detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt. 7.11 In respect of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt (paragraph

1.5 of PPG2), the local planning authority contends that the use conflicts with the second stated purpose – that of preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another. In granting planning permission for the club, the Secretary of State recognised that car parking and hard surfacing would have an impact on the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.

7.12 The local planning authority would contend that the increased visual impact

and activity resulting from the much enlarged airport related parking areas would further contribute to the coalescence of the Bishop’s Stortford with development around and to the east of junction 8 of the M11 to an unacceptable degree.

7.13 In respect of park and ride schemes, paragraph 3.17 of PPG2 states that

“The Government’s commitment to maintaining the openness of the Green Belt means that when seeking to locate park and ride development, non-Green Belt alternatives should be investigated first.” In this case, however, the appellants have submitted no evidence that any alternative sites have been considered.

7.14 Paragraph 3.17 goes on to state that park and ride developments may be

appropriate in the Green Belt subject to five stated provisos. The proposed use, however, does not comply with the first four of these.

a) There has been no thorough or comprehensive assessment of

potential sites elsewhere, either within the Green Belt or outside it. In fact, there has been no assessment at all.

b) The proposed site has not therefore, been established as the most

sustainable option for a park and ride development. Nor does the local planning authority consider that this scheme offers any advantages to on-airport parking in terms of sustainability.

c) The scheme seriously compromises the purpose of including land in

the Green Belt.

d) The proposal does not constitute part of the local transport plan. 7.15 Paragraph 3.19 of PPG2 states that in all cases, the layout, design, and

landscaping of the scheme must preserve, so far as possible, the openness

3/04/1603/FP

and visual amenity of the Green Belt. However, as I have mentioned above, the local planning authority considers that the proposal in this case does not preserve the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt.

7.16 The Supporting Statement accompanying the planning application states

that their proposal for park and ride scheme accords with PPG13. The advice in PPG13 under Para 59 is that ‘Park and Ride schemes in appropriate circumstances, can help promote more sustainable travel problems, both at local and strategic levels, and improve the accessibility and attractiveness of town centre… schemes have to be well-designed and well-conceived schemes. Schemes need to be developed as an integral part of the planning and transport strategy for the area and should be included in the local transport plan…’ This proposal is not well-conceived or designed. It spreads all around the whole of site, with extensive hard surfacing and creating an urban environment in the rural setting of the existing Green Belt. It is also detriment to the existing mature landscape areas. It does not form part of the transport strategy for the area.

7.17 In dealing with this planning application, the relevant Development Plan

comprises the Hertfordshire County Structure Plan and the East Hertfordshire Local Plan. The relevant adopted Structure Plan policies in respect to this planning application are 5, 25, 37.

7.18 Policy 5 of the Structure Plan relates to development within the

Metropolitan Green Belt. This reiterates government policy in PPG2 that there is a presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As already stated in earlier paras 7.6 to 7.15 the proposal is an inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It does not, therefore comply with this policy.

7.19 Policy 25 of the Structure Plan sets out the approach to car parking

provision in new developments. It states that provision for car parking in urban areas shall be considered in the context of district wide local plans and local transportation plans. It further highlights the need for development proposals with potentially significant car parking demand to be permitted only where the applicant has agreed to take measures to address the problems of traffic generation, congestion and on-street parking pressure. In this case, however, the proposal does not accord with this policy. It does not accord with the policies of the local plan; nor does it form part of the local transport plan.

7.20 In respect of park and ride schemes, policy 25 states that proposals will be

encouraged and suitable locations will be identified “in conjunction with service proposals”. This site has not been identified as a suitable location for park and ride facility.

3/04/1603/FP 7.21 Policy 37 (Stansted Airport Related Development in Herts) makes it clear

that direct and “associated” airport employment provision has been made at the airport itself and that therefore, no employment land provision for such purposes will be made in Hertfordshire. In respect of car parking, there is ample provision at the airport at present and there is ample land available within the Airport boundary to meet future forecast growth in demand. This has been confirmed by BAA Stansted in their letter attached to this report.

7.22 The current East Hertfordshire Local Plan was adopted in December 1999

and the East Herts Local Plan Second Review was placed on public deposit on 28 June 2001.

7.23 The Local Plan policies considered to be of most relevance here are RA2

and EMP3 with their Second Review equivalents being GBC2/3, and EDE2. 7.24 Policies RA2 and GBC2/3 reiterate government policy in PPG2 and

Structure Plan policy 5 that there is a presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As clearly stated in earlier paras 7.6 to 7.15 the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It does not meet any of the criteria set out in RA2(II) or in GBC3 and is therefore not in accordance with either of these policies. The proposal is, detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt and would, in the local planning authority’s opinion, lead to the coalescence of the surrounding built developments and therefore contrary to the aims of PPG2.

7.25 Policies EMP3 and EDE2 again reiterate the aims of policy 37 of the

Structure Plan. The airport has provision on site for some 26,000 spaces currently (with contingency parking provision agreed each year); detailed planning consent has been obtained for a further 1300 spaces; and the allocation of land to meet future demand of potentially up to 15,000 spaces has been approved by Uttlesford District Council.

7.26 Assessment of Parking needs and demand. 7.27 An assessment for implementing Park and Ride in Bishop’s Stortford has

been carried out by Ove Arup & Partners Ltd. It identified 6 potential sites for Park and Ride facilities. One of the sites tested was the M&D land adjacent to Bishop’s Stortford Football Club. This site ranked first out of all 6 sites tested. Permission for M&D site as a Park and Ride facility for the town centre has been given consent. This site is solely for Park and Ride into Bishop’s Stortford Town Centre and shall not be used in any way for parking in relation to Stansted. The amount of parking provision on the M&D site would satisfy the long term parking requirements for Bishop’s Stortford Town Centre. The current proposal provides no justification for

3/04/1603/FP

the extra provision of 232 spaces, except that it would serve the town centre, Bishop’s Stortford Station and Stansted Station. Commuter parking for the benefit of those traveling from these two railway stations would not benefit the long term parking needs of the town centre.

7.28 As clearly stated in the earlier Para 7.21 there is adequate parking at

Stansted Airport. If permission is granted for the proposed 232 parking spaces, it would undermine the M&D Park and Ride facilities and based on the history of the Bishop’s Stortford football site relating to unauthorised airport related parking, this new provision may even revert to airport parking. There is no justification either on need or demand to provide additional 232 spaces for Park and Ride facility. More important the submitted layout of the proposal makes no reference to the additional parking necessary for match days. This must have major implications of parking on the adjoining streets on match days, if the Park and Ride is permitted. It would mean that additional car parking that may be required by football club on match days will not be accommodated on site and will park on the surrounding road networks causing nuisance to the detriment of local and residential amenity.

7.29 Comparison with M&D Park and Ride facility. 7.30 The M&D Park and Ride facility would cater for 468 cars and it is intended

that this site would be used for long stay commuter parking (for people working within the town centre). The Park and Ride would be operated by the District Council on a season ticket holder basis only and it is intended that this would include the right to travel into and return from the town centre only. The car park will be gated and locked at night and no overnight parking will be permitted. It will not thereby, be possible for the car park to be used for long term airport parking. In comparison the current proposal is an open ended facility to serve the town centre, Bishop’s Stortford Station and Stansted Station.

7.31 Although both sites lie within the Metropolitan Green Belt, the M&D parking

scheme accords with the principles of the five provisos under PPG2, para 3.17, in the following way:

a) A feasibility study (Ove Arup) to assess the potential for implementing

Park and Ride in Bishop’s Stortford (commissioned by Hertfordshire County and East Hertfordshire District Council) concluded that this site was the most appropriate in terms of land availability and market assessment. The Bishop’s Stortford Football Club site did not form as an alternative site in this feasibility study. The current planning application provides no supporting evidence that inclusion of this site would be a serious contender.

3/04/1603/FP

b) The assessment has established that this site is the most sustainable

option for Park and Ride facility for the town centre. No such evidence is provided by the current planning application.

c) The scheme does not, in my view “seriously compromise” the

purposes of including land in Green Belt. These are: - To prevent the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; - To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; - To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; - To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, and - To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of

derelict and other urban land.

The M&D site is currently ‘sandwiched’ between the industrial estate to the west and football ground to the east, and therefore would not result in further ‘sprawl’ of Bishop’s Stortford. As a matter of fact M&D site has a strong visual boundary in terms of a long line of trees, many having the benefit of TPOs. Proposed parking on the application site would result in further ‘sprawl’ of Bishop’s Stortford. It would encroach into the surrounding countryside and would detract from the setting and special character of the town. Furthermore the application site would contribute towards the merging of the town with development around the M11, whilst the existence of a football pitch and ancillary buildings and training pitches together with limited parking does not ‘seriously’ compromise this purpose of the Green Belt policy.

d) The Local Transport Plan (and Policy 25 of the Structure Plan)

encourages proposals to provide park and ride facilities for access to appropriate town centres. Whilst the adopted Bishop’s Stortford Transportation Plan does not specifically mention park and ride, it does state the demand for long stay parking in the town is high and therefore is a need to identify a suitable parking management strategy for the town. In addition, a successful park and ride site will accord with several of transport strategies listed within the plan. The application proposal provides no reference to the demand for long stay parking and its claim to serve Bishop’s Stortford and Stansted Stations and therefore must imply that this type of park and ride facility is more intended for those commuting out of the District in London or the surrounding Counties, and therefore having limited or if any benefit for those working in the town centre.

7.32 It has to be accepted that the proposal would have an important negative

impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the Inspector, in refusing

3/04/1603/FP

planning permission on the previous scheme for this site, noted that. However in that case, there were also several other reasons why the Inspector considered the scheme to be unacceptable and these, together with the loss of openness led to the refusal of planning permission. Importantly, the Inspector noted that the earlier scheme was not based on the sort of rigorous analysis that is required. The current proposal is similar. There is no rigorous analysis accompanying the planning application and the supporting statement is based on ‘unsubstantiated assertions rather than evidence’. The M&D site has been subject of a comprehensive assessment and accords with the strategies of the Local Transport Plan.

7.33 It is also important to note the difference between M&D site and the airport

related parking taking place on the current application site, which is also subject to an enforcement action. The airport parking does not accord with Government Guidance on Green Belts in PPG2, or the guidance given in PPG13 – Transportation, in that it is never the subject of a thorough and comprehensive assessment of potential sites for Park and Ride, and its operation would be contrary to both Structure Plan and Local Plan policies regarding the location of airport related activities.

7.34 Other material considerations 7.35 The proposed layout of new parking provision together with the existing

parking associated with the football club leads to complete ‘urbanisation’ of the site through vast surfacing works. The layout of the parking areas is almost squashed to the important line of trees (many with TPOs) bordering the site with adjacent M&D Park and Ride facility. Such a layout of hard surfacing would lead to extensive damage and loss of these important mature trees, which form an important visual urban edge to Bishop’s Sortford. There is already evidence that the existing unauthorised parking next to these trees is causing substantial damage. The current compacted ground conditions around the trees will have a very damaging effect on the trees.

7.36 The Supporting Statement accompanying the planning application states

that there are important material considerations which reinforce the appropriateness and acceptability of the scheme in this Green Belt locations. These are:

i) The football club is valuable asset to the town. The potential of

revenue from the park and ride would help avoid the demise of the club in its present form. The issue of the income from park and ride operation to secure the financial viability of the club was fully examined by the Inspector dealing with the Enforcement Appeal on

3/04/1603/FP

30 October 2003, but the Inspector was persuaded that the club may have to seek alternative sources of income or possibly even close. The financial evidence did not outweigh the significant harm to the openness of Green Belt.

ii) The Supporting Statement claims that the club is valuable asset to

the town. Following the grant of planning permission (by the Secretary of State) BSFC has found increasing financial difficulties. Tackling these difficulties has involved maximising all possible resources in order to ensure survival. No evidence has been provided with this application in terms of alternative means which would subsidise its income. Even the Inspector on the enforcement appeal referred to some scope for increasing earnings from the hire of the pitch and other similar activities or even the introduction of charges on parking on match days.

8.0 Summary and Conclusion 8.1 In conclusion the Park and Ride scheme is of limited value as proposed in

relation to local transport objectives and would potentially lead to other inappropriate uses including airport related parking. There is no overriding need for the development such that the Green Belt policy may be set aside. In the absence of such need, this inappropriate development is unacceptable within the Green Belt and would contribute to the coalescence of Bishop’s Stortford with the surrounding development. Whilst the Park and Ride on M&D site is a material consideration, this consent is based on exceptional circumstances. The overall layout of the parking proposal, complete with the surfacing works and potential damage to existing row of important trees on the edge of the town would have a major detrimental impact on this part of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP

3/04/1603/FP