Agenda and minutes

To note any substitution of Committee Members made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules.

The following substitution was made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules:

Cllr R Platt for Cllr F Marsh. 

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr F Marsh.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 11^th January 2024 (previously circulated).

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2024 were confirmed as an accurate record.

There were no items of urgent business and no items were withdrawn from the agenda.

To note declarations of Members’ disclosable pecuniary interests, non-disclosable pecuniary interests and non-pecuniary interests in respect of items on the Agenda.

Cllr Thomson declared an interest as a member of Hertfordshire County Council.

Cllr Watson, as a member of Hatfield Town Council, had previously discussed Former Beales Hotel and had spoken about it at the previous meeting, so she would recuse herself for that item.

To receive a report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

Cllr Watson excused herself for this item as noted during her declaration of interest.

There had been a late representation submitted by the Lead Local Flood Authority following submission of a revised plan showing two visitor spaces to the front of the site; they had asked if there would be permeable paving as if so, there would not be an impact on flood risk. The Planning Officer confirmed there would be permeable paving.

The application sought planning permission for the erection of a 142 unit residential development following the demolition of the existing building, the former Beales Hotel. The application was before Development Management Committee (DMC) because Hatfield Town Council had submitted a major objection, set out in paragraph 9.1 of the report.

The application site has an area of around 0.64 hectares and is located to the north-west side of Comet Way, close to the Comet roundabout. The hotel closed in 2020 and currently has temporary planning permission as a hostel which expires in June 2024. The proposal was for a 5 to 6 storey building. Of the 142 flats, 90 would have one bedroom, 50 would have two bedrooms and 2 would have three bedrooms. There had been a design evolution to the proposed redevelopment of the site; in early 2021, a pre-application enquiry had been submitted for a 9-storey building with 161 flats. Officers had advised a reduction in height, greater separation distance between the neighbouring development at Parkhouse Court and an increased ratio in car park provision. There had been further reductions in the height and bulk of the development during this application submission, mainly to overcome impacts on the neighbour amenity at Parkhouse Court, and the number of dwellings had also been reduced. Officers considered the height and scale of the development would sit comfortably in its context.    

There would be 123 parking spaces in the development including 15 disabled spaces, 2 visitor spaces and a car club space. Following members’ comments at the previous DMC meeting when the application had been deferred, 2 visitor spaces had been added to the front of the site which necessitated a reduction in amenity space there. There were 13 ready to use EV charging points and 146 secure covered cycle spaces. In terms of car parking, the ratio of spaces per dwelling matched that of a planning permission granted in 2022 for 118 flats at the former Volkswagen site which was in close proximity to the application site. While not all dwellings would have a car parking space, a planning condition was included which would ensure no dwelling had more than one parking space. A management strategy for car parking would be secured through the legal agreement.

All the proposed flats would accord with the nationally described space standards and would have either an external terrace or balcony, and each resident would benefit from both private amenity space and access to communal amenity areas. The proposal included the closure of the existing access to the site on Comet  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.

To receive a report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

The application was for the erection of a replacement dwelling house and associated landscaping at 58 Harmer Green Lane, following the demolition of the existing house, garage and outbuilding. The site was not in a conservation area or green belt land and the building was not listed. The application was before the Committee as it had been called in by Cllr Cragg due to concerns about wildlife. Key issues were heritage, design, wildlife and a late representation from the Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB).

In terms of heritage, the Soper family (collectively considered to be artists of national importance) was closely linked to the site: the house had been built in 1908 for George Soper who lived there with his wife and daughters Eileen and Eva. Historic England did not feel there was enough merit in the building for it to be listed as it did not have sufficient architectural merit and did not evidence how it would have been used by the family for the creation of their artwork. It was believed there had been significant internal changes to the building in the 1990s when Eileen and Eva were much older and it was adapted for their needs. Overall, there was not enough merit in the property for officers to feel the building should remain. Officers noted the wide range of property types, sizes, shapes and designs along Harmer Green Lane which gave an indication of some of the varied types of architecture locally.

The application was submitted with a preliminary ecological appraisal and also a bat roost assessment, which the County's ecology team was content was robust; it had investigated the possibilities of a range of species on the site including great crested newts, toads reptiles, nesting birds, birds of conservation concern, bats, badgers, hazel dormice, hares, voles, otters and hedgehogs. Two conditions were proposed as a result: a construction and ecological management plan which meant the ecology of the site would be protected during construction, and a landscape ecological management plan to ensure the site remained respectful to the environment.

An L-shaped strip of land had been given to the RSPB by the Soper family and although it was not formally designated as a wildlife site, it had wildlife value. Historically, there had been an informal arrangement whereby the RSPB could access the land via the gardens at 58 Harmer Green Lane. The RSPB had asked whether £10,000 could be secured through a S106 agreement to allow for a new access point. The view of officers was that this would not be appropriate in meeting the tests of what a S106 could secure and it was not related to the development proposal in question. 

Simon Warner, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee:

“I am a Director from Warner Planning, speaking on behalf of the applicant this evening. In the speech I would like to take a few minutes to highlight the most important aspects of this high-quality development and make a positive contribution to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

To receive a report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Director (Planning) setting out the appeal decisions for the period 7 December 2023 – 30 January 2024.  There were four appeals on the list. Three related to planning applications which had been dismissed. The other (appeal decision against an enforcement notice at land to the south of Darby Drive, Spinney Lane, Welwyn AL6 9TB) was allowed: the Inspector had concluded there was a change of use onsite albeit not the one officers had initially alleged, and this was now back with the enforcement team to consider the next steps.

A member noted 41 Ayot Green, Ayot St Peter, Welwyn AL6 9AB, (certificate of lawfulness for the existing garage/annex as a second home) had been dismissed and asked about process. Officers confirmed this was pre-existing use; the applicant had tried to ascertain that the use had been ongoing for 10 or more years and the Inspector had found on balance that there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate this, so the enforcement case was now live again and the enforcement team were looking at next steps.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the appeal decisions report.

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Director (Planning) on future planning applications.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the report.