Agenda item

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

Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the erection of 1 x two bedroom dwelling.

The application site was located on the east side of Bishops Rise at the junction with Lark Rise and formed part of a row of seven two storey detached properties of similar style and appearance which fronted onto Bishops Rise. On the opposite side of the Bishops Rise, to the west of the site, was the University of Hertfordshire’s College Lane Campus.

The site comprised a two storey detached five bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) with a front, side and rear garden. The site benefited from a hard standing, which could accommodate two cars, as well as detached single garage. The parking area and garage were accessed via Lark Rise.

The application sought planning permission to erect a two bedroom self-contained dwelling to the north side of 55 Bishops Rise. The new dwelling would be single storey with a footprint side extension to No.55 which would measure approximately 11.4 metres deep by 6.7 metres wide with a pitched roof approximately 3.7 metres in height. The new dwelling would be finished in matching materials to No.55.

This application was presented to the Committee because Councillor Broach had called it in:-

‘I would like to call this application in to DMC, however I am happy for this to be refused under delegated powers if applicable. My reasons for the call in are as follows:

The proposed development would result in an overdevelopment of the site, given the footprint of the proposed bungalow when compared to the existing HMO.

The plans note 4 existing car parking spaces for the HMO – however no new parking spaces are proposed to accommodate the needs of this new site. Instead, the existing spaces for the HMO have been allocated to the annex. The applicant has failed in his duty to provide new parking spaces for this new development.

I would therefore question whether the existing HMO will remain compliant with criterion HMO2 of the - Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document due to the loss of parking provision? I would also argue that the expectations of the WHBC Supplementary planning guidance have not been met, in particular section 4.1, which states “Residential development will generally be expected to accommodate all parking demand on site”. 4 spaces for the HMO plus this annex is woefully insufficient. The loss of the existing garage space would further exacerbate this. I also note that there is no access into the HMO from this annex. If this is the case, should this not be considered a separate dwelling as opposed to an annex?

A neighbour on Lark Rise has shared some serious concerns with me in regards to this proposal, which I fully support. I particular note the point that this proposal would be out of keeping with the immediate surrounding area, raising concerns about whether this proposal would be compliant with Section 5.2 of the WHBC Supplementary Design Guidance (2005).

I also have concerns that this proposal poses a severe risk to the enjoyment of outdoor amenity space to the occupants of No. 2 Lark Rise – which raises concerns around Section 5.7 of the SDG. 

In summary – this is a wholly inappropriate development for this area, and I urge you to refuse it based on the planning policies referenced above.’

D.Goodman, agent, spoke for the application saying that the application was for a two bedroom dwelling and not a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO). All planning standards had been met and it was good and efficient use of primary land. The property reflected the character of the area and there was sufficient parking and amenity space.

D.Orton spoke as an objector and said that the property would require four extra parking spaces in an area that was overcrowded. The refuse bins were near to the windows of his lounge area and should be relocated.

Hatfield Town Councillor, M.Eames-Petersen, spoke against the application, presenting the Parish Council’s objection that it was overdevelopment of the site and there were concerns regarding a lack of parking spaces.

Late representation of objection were received and photographs circulated which showed the parking situation.

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

RESOLVED:

(8 voting for, 3 against and 1 abstention)

That planning permission be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out in report and an additional condition as follows:-

CONDITION: Notwithstanding the details shown on drawing number 4480-PO1-NEW-SCHEME Revision F, the applicant shall submit details to the Local Planning Authority of alternative bin store arrangements prior to any development above ground level. The approved details shall then be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the new dwelling and permanently maintained in that form.

REASON: In order to ensure the good management of refuse and recycling on the site and to protect the living conditions of nearby occupiers in accordance with Policy D1 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005.

(Note:  Councillor J.Broach declared an interest and withdrew for this item – Minute 42 refers).