Agenda and draft minutes

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

Apologies for absence were received for Councillor Shah for whom Councillor Crofton attended as a substitute, and Councillor Short for whom Councillor Cragg attended as a substitute.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2024 (previously circulated).

The minutes of the meeting held on the 7 March 2024 were agreed as a correct record.

There were no items of urgent business.

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

No declarations of interest were received.

The Assistant Director (Planning) provided a presentation on the overview of the role of Development Management Committee setting of the format and content of the meetings.

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

The Development Management Committee received the application which sought outline planning permission for the erection of up to 150 residential dwellings with the provision of affordable housing, public open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and vehicular access point.

The application was brought to Committee as Councillor Cragg had called-in the application due to concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on highways safety and flooding.

Sian Wilding, agent for the application, addressed the Committee as follows:

“I'd like to thank you for allowing me to speak in support of this application today.

I'd also like to thank officers for their professional consideration of this application.

Members will be aware that the application site is allocated for the development of 150 dwellings in the Local Plan and that the delivery of allocated size is highlighted in the Council's housing delivery test action plan as key to boosting housing supply and delivery in the borough. Our proposals fully comply with the allocation policy and other relevant policies of the Plan, including the provision of 35% affordable housing.

We have worked closely with officers to ensure that our proposals will result in the delivery of a suitable and sustainable development in Woolmer Green, whilst an outline application careful consideration has been given to indicative design principles to ensure that the proposal is sympathetic to its context and that the foundations are set for a high quality development to be achieved through a future reserved matters application.

As detailed in the officer's report, there are no objections from statutory consultees. The Local Highway Authority is satisfied that the proposed access arrangements from London Road are safe and suitable for the scale of development proposed, whilst both HCC and national highways have confirmed that the scheme would not have an unacceptable impact on the operation of the highway network.

We are aware of some local concern regarding flood risk, however, the Lead Local Flood Authority has thoroughly assessed our drainage strategy and offers no objection subject to the imposition of conditions. Our strategy not only ensures that there will be no adverse impact on either the site, or elsewhere from flood risk but offers the opportunity for a betterment to existing conditions.

Our proposals also include a range of other benefits for both new and existing residents of Woolmer Green including the provision of a pedestrian crossing over London Road, improvements to existing bus stops and a contribution of more than 1 million pounds towards the County Council sustainable travel corridor scheme along London Road. In addition, the development will incorporate substantial new public open space, including new footpaths and a community orchard, and will enhance existing trees and hedgerows to create important wildlife corridors and green connections. Substantial new landscape planting will also be provided with a specific focus on where the site borders the Green Belt.

Further benefits include contributions towards improvements to the village playground, local sports facilities and local health services.

To conclude, the application proposals represent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

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

The Development Management Committee received the application which sought planning permission for the erection of 44 dwellings following demolition of existing buildings and structures at Colesdale Farm with all matters reserved apart from access. The development would be served by new vehicular access taken from Northaw Road West located approximately 15m west of the existing access. A second existing access to the south east corner of the site would be retained to serve Colesdale Farmhouse and to provide pedestrian and cycle access to the development site. 

The application was brought to the Committee as Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council submitted a major objection.

The following statement was read to the Committee on behalf of Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council:

“This proposal represents a windfall site located in the London Metropolitan Green Belt, which is inappropriate in the Green Belt by virtue of the location, being outside of settlement envelopes, and a misalignment with national and local policies.

The former proposal, allowed at appeal, was approved in the context of the old Local Plan, prior to the Neighbourhood Plan coming into force and prior to the latest NPPF and adopted Local Plan.

This application must now be considered within this new policy context:

•           The applicant’s principal Green Belt arguments are based on a superseded policy framework.

•           The revised policy framework, read alongside WHBC Local Plan Policy SADM 34, limits in-fill development to no more than four dwellings. Therefore, the site cannot be considered infill  and has not sought to reduce its development footprint based on the extent of existing agricultural structures.

•           Welwyn Hatfield’s Local Plan was adopted nine months ago, and it allocates sufficient land to meet local housing needs. The site is not required to deliver the market homes and affordable housing required locally based on the submitted housing trajectory.

•           The site is contrary to both the Development Plan and national policy, which recognise that the fundamental aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl and maintain openness.

•           The site is washed over by the London Metropolitan Green Belt separating the inset settlements of Potters Bar and Cuffley, and neither the Local Plan nor Neighbourhood Plan allocate the Colesdale Farm site as a location suitable for development.

•           The development proposal extends into open countryside, and results in urbanising development in a countryside location. The Colesdale Farm site has no development in or around it to be justified as infill. The development proposal wouldn’t result in the re-use of buildings or of previously developed land capable of:

o Having less impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development (NPPF paragraph 154 g)

o Not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt (NPPF paragraph 154g)

o Preserving openness and not conflicting with the purposes of Green Belt (NPPF paragraph 155)

•        The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that Very Special Circumstances exist and that any harm to the Green Belt is outweighed by the scheme’s benefits.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

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

At this point in the meeting Councillor Crofton left the meeting.

The Development Management Committee received the application which sought outline planning permission for the erection of an additional dwelling with all matters reserved.  The proposal includes a two-storey side extension which would form the additional end of terrace dwelling.

The application was brought to the Committee as Councillor Rowse had raised concerns that access to the site was restricted and the new dwelling would be unable to apply for parking permits.

Councillor Rowse spoke against the application as follows:

“I understand there are competing priorities to consider when deciding whether to improve this application. If the planning application is approved, then it will represent one further windfall development towards our Local Plan targets. My objection links to key principles of our Local Plan, which I've had great joy in reading recently, finally agreed last year.

Specifically, I believe this planning application is contrary to point 6 of our borough wide strategic objectives to maximise the opportunity to travel by sustainable transport modes and manage parking demand, and against point 2 of essay DM 1, the development will be accessible to a range of services and facilities by transport modes other than car.

The property is indeed served by two nearby bus stops on Woods Avenue called Elm Drive. The primary transport hub in Hatfield is the train station where you can both catch trains and access bus services to wider Hertfordshire unless there is only one service per week from Woods Avenue to the station. The 230 at 14.40 on a Wednesday. The only regular service is the 610 which is fine if you're looking to go to the University campus or perhaps Luton, but not for other destinations.

 I cannot see how this is considered as maximising the opportunity to travel by sustainable transport. Officers refer to ready walking access to the town centre, but elderly residents and those with mobility issues would disagree.

Turning to parking demand, the plans do not include proposals for off street parking, and the Council's SPG's suggests a two bedroom dwelling house in this location requires one and a half parking spaces, and yet the residents of the new property would not be eligible to apply for parking permits. This might be seen as a disincentive for future occupiers to own a car. Although there are suggestions that an easy way round this is to seek agreement with your neighbour to register your car at their address before applying for a permit. So residents of the new property are likely to struggle with car parking and would not have ready access to public transport. In all likelihood, it would exacerbate parking for their neighbours. And, incidentally, two of the three HMOs in Elm Drive had no off-street parking.

Finally, I would like to comment on 12a Elm Drive, which is mentioned by both officers in their report, as well as the occupier of 10 Elm Drive in their rather ironic support of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

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

The Development Management Committee received the application which sought outline planning permission for the sub-division of the site and erection of a 2-bedroom detached bungalow.  The new plot created would have external dimensions of approximately 18m wide x 15m deep. The new dwelling would be sited behind the existing dwelling with frontage and vehicular access obtained from Puttocks Drive. 

The application was brought to the Committee as Councillor Zukowskyj had called in the application due concerns regarding to access to the site during construction and back garden development.

Chris Georgiou, agent for the application, addressed the Committee as follows:

“The application presented to this committee is the subdivision of 26 Huggins Lane and the erection of a new bungalow at the rear. We recognise the importance of maintaining an appropriate form of development and having worked closely with the Planning Officer we have put forward a proposal which respects the existing pattern of development and the character of the immediate area. This proposal delivers a high quality two bedroom bungalow for the borough. The proposal draws on presidencies from the immediate area. Similar bungalows can be found on the Huggins Lane and Paddocks Lane. The overall design of the proposals is sympathetic and appropriate in scale. The materials have been carefully selected to ensure that the development sits comfortably within its settings and that it is in keeping with the immediate character of the area. 

The proposal does not in any way cause harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light and privacy. The bungalow sits comfortably with an appropriately sized plot. The bungalow is well proportioned and offers a high standard of accommodation. It is believed that the layout is pragmatic and user-friendly.  The layout has been designed to take into account modern day living and will provide future occupants with a sustainable development.

The development complies with all national technical housing standards. Furthermore, the development offers an functional and usable garden. It is considered that there will be acceptable to amenity for the new bungalow but also for the retained house at 26 Huggins Lane.

We have provided two parking spaces in line with local policy and will be accessed via a new double crossover. Concerns regarding visibility raised by the Highway Authority have been addressed and the vehicle to vehicle and pedestrian visibility displays are found acceptable.

The new bungalow has been provided with the appropriate refuse recycling and bike stores, and these are located to the side of the plot. There has been some suggestion from some local residents that the erection of this development would infringe access to Paddocks Lane and have an unacceptable level of disturbance to local residents.

In order to mitigate these concerns, the approval would include for a condition placing a requirement on the developer to provide a construction management plan which will outline a clear plan to avoid unreasonable impact on the safety and operation of the highways. It is our contention that the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

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

The Development Management Committee received the application which sought outline planning permission for the erection of a part two-storey, part single storey rear extension and a single-storey side extension, following the demolition of the existing side extension. The application sought the existing two-bedroom dwelling increased in size to accommodate a third bedroom at first floor and a fourth bedroom at ground floor.  The description of the proposed development  and floor plans were amended during the application process to remove a reference to a change of use.

The application was brought to the Committee as Councillor Rowse had called in the application due to parking provisions.

The ward Councillor, Tim Rowse, addressed the Committee as follows:

“I wanted to stress that when I called it in it was originally against the change of use application, albeit they subsequently changed that I'll try and keep my objection brief.

Parking in my ward is under huge stress as car ownership is far in excess of what was envisaged when the housing was built.  Matters have been exacerbated by the large growth in HMOs, many of which do not do not satisfy the parking requirements for off street parking of the special planning directive including the nearby 74 Hillcrest.

Officers say that there is currently under provision of car parking at 1.00 and a half spaces, and the proposals mean it was shoulder of a further one and a half spaces, so three in total.

The proposal is for a care home and whilst I doubt if any of the residents will need to park outside. I would expect their visitors to travel by car, as many of their visits are likely to be in the evening or at weekends when public transport is less available and parking is most stressed as few residents are at work.

My objection links to key principles of our Local Plan and specifically, I believe this planning application is contrary to point 6 of borough wide strategic objectives to maximise the opportunity to travel by sustainable transport modes and manage parking demand.

Furthermore, I believe it is reasonable to believe that visitors and residents struggling to park will have a negative impact on highway safety. This property is near the junction with Hazeldine Meadows.

At 9.3 1 of their report officers said that it would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to provide on-site car parking, given the constraints of the application site. I believe this fails to put sufficient emphasis on point 6 of our borough wide strategic objectives, and I believe there are opportunities to provide off street parking either the front of the building or possibly at the rear, which is accessed by the road running to the Council garages. We could, and we should be challenging this parking creep is a nightmare in my ward. I therefore suggest that this planning application could be approved, subject to the existing conditions outlined at 11.00 of the officers report, together with a further provision to provide  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

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 27^th February 2024 to 18^th June 2024.

RESOLVED

The Committee noted the appeal decision report.

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

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the report.

The Committee is asked to resolve:

That under Section 100(A)(2) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be now excluded from the meeting for Item 14 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of confidential or exempt information as defined in Section 100(A)(3) and Paragraphs 2 (Information likely to reveal the identity of an individual), and 6 (Statutory notice or order)  of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act (as amended).

In resolving to exclude the public in respect of the exempt information, it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.