Agenda and minutes

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 January 2022 (previously circulated).

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 January 2022 were approved as a correct record.

Report of the Head of Planning.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Report of the Head of Planning.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Report of the Head of Planning.

Report of the Head of Planning on the erection of 34 dwellings of which 35% would be affordable (12 units).  The scale of the buildings would be 2 storey and 2½ storey with all dwellings featuring low level eaves.  The proposed density for the site was 36.6 dwellings per hectare comprising a mix of 1-bed and 2-bed maisonettes; 2-bed terrace houses; and 3, 4 and 5-bed detached and semi-detached houses.  The development proposed a range of house types, sizes and tenures in order to provide a wide choice of homes, able to accommodate a variety of household types and thereby creating a mixed and inclusive community. It was proposed to utilise the existing site access from Hawkshead Road which would be improved as part of the proposals to include a segregated footway into the site and an improved pedestrian crossing.  In addition, a separate pedestrian only access was proposed towards the south-western corner of the site onto the public footway.  The proposals would retain and strengthen the existing landscape buffer along Hawkshead Road and new structural planting was proposed within the site and along the site boundaries.

The application was presented to the Development Management Committee because it represented a departure from the Local Plan and was recommended for approval.

Mr Jonathan Collins, spoke as the applicant, and emphasised that the development would be a logical, policy compliant, and sustainable infill of 34 dwellings. It would provide architecturally sympathetic homes, utilising Modern Methods of Construction. The homes would benefit from photo voltaic panels and air source heat pumps. The applicant had sought to allay objections through addressing parking provision, the utilisation of SUDs, and biodiversity enhancements, including a financial contribution for off-site mitigation.

Mr Simon Polledri, spoke on behalf of the Little Heath Action Group, in objection to the proposals. The greenfield site had not been allocated for development in the existing Local Plan, and approval of the application could set a precedent. The proposed site boundary would be irregular and incoherent. Community engagement had not taken place, and the development was not in keeping with the local area.

Members asked about parking provision, and the suitability of the proposed construction materials in the context of the local vernacular of building materials. Officers set out the parking assessment methodology and a total of 63 parking spaces were proposed. All of the 1-bed and 2-bed units would have access to one space and all of the larger properties would have access to two spaces. This would allow for nine unallocated spaces to be shared and utilised efficiently for residents and visitors. Turning to the construction materials, in the context of using metal seamed roofing and painted brickwork, Officers explained that those were not atypical materials in Hertfordshire and painted brick was particularly a feature of traditional local architecture. Maintenance would be consistent with what would be needed for any painted rendered domestic property.

Members noted the mixed size of the proposed units and sought clarification of whether the gross  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Report of the Head of Planning

Report of the Head of Planning on the erection of a first-floor rear extension, loft conversion involving the insertion of a rear dormer and installation of three front facing skylights, and a new ground floor residential access to facilitate the creation of an additional residential unit. The proposed first floor rear extension would measure approximately 5.7m in height, 6.4m in width and 4m in depth, utilising a flat roof form. The proposed rear dormer would have a height of approximately 2.4m, width of 3.85m and depth of 2.55m.

The application was presented to the Development Management Committee because Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council submitted a Major Objection.

Mr Ali Ender Cemgil, spoke as the applicant, and clarified that his previous application may have led to a misunderstanding of the current application.

The Chair asked Officers to comment on the major objection received from Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council. Officers explained that the Parish Council had raised concerns that the proposal would remove the rear access to the retail unit used for servicing and as a result, would impact upon the viability of the unit for future retail use. The applicant had, however, subsequently submitted amended plans to demonstrate that the existing storeroom and access would be maintained for the retail unit. The separate access proposed for the residential units would mean that the existing retail use would be unaffected by the scheme.

Members asked about the provision of fire exits and parking. Officers responded that there was no change to the existing layout of the building, and that the development would be subject to seeking consent under the Building Regulations. Officers also clarified that the impact upon parking in the area by the additional unit would be low. Visitors of the new residents would be able to utilise free public car parking bays/disabled parking bays located in close proximity to the site and at the frontage on Station Road. Furthermore, the proposed plans demonstrated that there would be adequate internal cycle parking for both dwellings, which would encourage greater use of sustainable transport modes.

The Chair gave an overview of the main points raised throughout the discussion.

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors P. Shah and S. Tunstall and,

          RESOLVED:

          (12 in Favour, 1 Against)

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions proposed in the report.

Report of the Head of Planning

Report of the Head of Planning on the erection of a two storey and a single storey rear and side extension. The proposal would create a larger kitchen/dining/living room, two additional bedrooms. The property benefits from private amenity space to the rear. The property was currently let on a single Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) agreement. If planning permission was granted, the applicant intended to rent the property to a group of 6 students on a single AST agreement.

The application was presented to the Development Management Committee because Hatfield Town Council submitted a Major Objection.

Town Councillor Margaret Eames-Petersen, spoke on behalf of Hatfield Town Council, and urged caution as the proposal may lead to the overdevelopment of the cul-de-sac. Parking and turning space was already insufficient and the next door property (No 24) was already an HMO. The need for university accommodation was lower due to the pandemic, and consequently, there may not be demand for a larger HMO.

The Chair asked for Officers to comment on whether there would be an impact on the neighbouring property at No.24. Officers clarified that the planned extension would not impact on that property and reminded Members that the use of the dwelling as an HMO was established prior to the Article 4 Direction coming into force. The application site was an existing small house in multiple occupation and would remain as such. The Legal Advisor concurred that the use of the property as an HMO was already established.

Members’ discussion included whether there was a need for a larger HMO to accommodate students, when the existing student accommodation was not fully used. Officers responded that the ending of Covid legal restrictions would be likely to have a knock-on effect on the demand for student accommodation.

Members commented on the size of the bedrooms, and parking provision. Officers stated that the Council’s SPD sets out the minimum space standards required depending on the number of occupiers to ensure that the occupants are not living within excessively cramped conditions and the HMO properties would not be overcrowded. The site benefitted from a dropped kerb and hardstanding to the front. The proposal had been amended to provide two on-site car parking spaces. In addition, there were around three unallocated on-street parking spaces in front of the property. It was considered that the proposal complies with the Council’s access and car parking standards.

The Chair summarised the concerns raised throughout the discussion and in so doing, cautioned that that there appeared to be no planning reason for refusal that would be sustainable on appeal. 

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors R. Trigg and J. Ranshaw and,

          RESOLVED:

(8 in favour, 5 against)

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions proposed in the report.

Report of the Head of Planning.

RESOLVED:

That appeal decisions during the period 8 January to 18 February 2022 be noted.

Report of the Head of Planning.

RESOLVED:

That future planning applications which might be considered by the Committee be noted.

Report of the Head of Planning on the performance of the Development Management Service over the three month period October to December 2021 (Quarter 4).

RESOLVED:

Members noted the report, and the Chair expressed thanks on behalf of the Committee to the Planning team.