Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance).

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the application for the approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout, scale) including, details of construction management, refuse/waste strategy, fire safety strategy, on street lighting strategy, car and cycle layout, incorporating electric charging vehicle charging points and visibility splays, for the erection of 21 dwellings.

The application site was located within the heart of Panshanger Ward approximately two miles to the east of the centre of Welwyn Garden City and was roughly a rectangular piece of undeveloped land of approximately 0.70ha. This site was part of a larger piece of land, immediately to the south-west of the application site which had been re-developed for a 75 bed care home.

The application site might be described as an island site bounded on three sides by roads, which comprised Bericot Way to the west, Shackleton Way to the east and Waterbeach to the north, with the care home development immediately to the south. The site consisted of an undeveloped greenfield site which was laid to grass and was relatively flat. It was surrounded by a grass bund with a number of trees and vegetation on or next to it, which formed a soft boundary between the site and the adjacent houses and highway.

This application was presented to the Committee because Councillor T.Mitchinson had called it in on the grounds of:

“I have been contacted by various people living nearby with regards the design and especially the placing of the affordable homes directly next to existing properties. There is also no mention of an entrance onto the main road (Bericot way) rather than off Waterbeach. Something I originally asked to be considered. I need to ensure people’s views are represented; they already feel they are being ridden roughshod over with two of the strategic sites being in that part of WGC. They claim the ‘consultation’ by developers was cursory and aimed at disguising the final layout.”

H.Howe spoke for the application saying that the vehicular access had already been approved and there had been a significant amount of review and consultation. The proposal would complement the existing pattern of development, would not cause an adverse impact and deliver much needed new homes in this sustainable location. Additional landscaping was proposed and no objections had been received from statutory consultees.

S.Surendran had submitted a letter and photographs on behalf of a group of local residents and spoke against the application asking for it to be deferred on the grounds that, whilst they were not opposed to it in principle, there were flaws/ omissions/ errors in the application and it could be made a better fit with the area with some improvements to the proposed access and design.

Borough Ward Councillor T.Mitchinson spoke against the application saying that residents’ views had not been properly considered. The access could be off Bericot Way, rather than Waterbeach, with the temporary access being made permanent. The developers said they would look at this but had not done so. The proposal would have an adverse impact on Waterbeach and should be deferred to let the developers look at the access.

Members discussed the application and the points raised by the public speakers.

The Committee was advised by Planning Officers and the Legal Advisor that this application followed the approval of outline planning permission for the erection of 21 dwellings with all matters reserved except access which had been approved from Waterbeach via a new vehicular access road.

Therefore the principle of the development of the site for the erection of 21 dwellings had been established and was deemed acceptable in this location. This current application was a reserved matters application relating to the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development, including fire safety strategy to discharge pre-commencement planning conditions.

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors S.Kasumu and P.Hebden:-

“That notwithstanding the Officer recommendation for approval, planning permission be refused on the grounds of design which was not in keeping with the area and loss of privacy for the occupiers of numbers 2,3 and 4 Waterbeach in accordance with policies D1 and D2.”

This proposal was LOST (6 Voting FOR and 7 AGAINST)

It was then proposed and seconded by Councillors J.Broach and P.Shah and

RESOLVED:

(7 Voting For and 6 Against)

That planning permission be approved, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.