Agenda item - HILL-TOP NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE, HIGH VIEW, HATFIELD, AL10 8HZ - 6/2019/1067/MAJ - REDEVELOPMENT OF PART OF THE HILL-TOP SHOPPING CENTRE AT HIGH VIEW, SOUTH HATFIELD TO PROVIDE 18 RETAIL UNITS (CLASS A1, A2, A3, A5, B1 AND SUI GENERIS), A DOCTOR'S SURGERY (FLEXIBLE USE CLASS A1, A2, A3, A5, D1), 146 RESIDENTIAL UNITS (CLASS C3), NEW PUBLIC OPEN SPACE INCLUDING CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA OFF HIGH VIEW, NEW PUBLIC SQUARE IN FRONT OF THE CHURCH, ASSOCIATED PARKING, HIGHWAYS AND DRAINAGE WORKS AND PUBLIC REALM IMPROVEMENTS

Agenda item

HILL-TOP NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE, HIGH VIEW, HATFIELD, AL10 8HZ - 6/2019/1067/MAJ - REDEVELOPMENT OF PART OF THE HILL-TOP SHOPPING CENTRE AT HIGH VIEW, SOUTH HATFIELD TO PROVIDE 18 RETAIL UNITS (CLASS A1, A2, A3, A5, B1 AND SUI GENERIS), A DOCTOR'S SURGERY (FLEXIBLE USE CLASS A1, A2, A3, A5, D1), 146 RESIDENTIAL UNITS (CLASS C3), NEW PUBLIC OPEN SPACE INCLUDING CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA OFF HIGH VIEW, NEW PUBLIC SQUARE IN FRONT OF THE CHURCH, ASSOCIATED PARKING, HIGHWAYS AND DRAINAGE WORKS AND PUBLIC REALM IMPROVEMENTS

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

Minutes:

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the redevelopment of part of the hill-top shopping centre at high view, South Hatfield to provide 18 retail units (class, A1, A2, A3, A5, B1 and Sui Generis), a Doctor’s Surgery (flexible use class A1, A2, A3, A5, D1), 146 residential units (Class C3), new public open space including children’s play area off high view, new public square in front of the church, associated parking, highways and drainage works and public realm improvements.

 

The site was located in South Hatfield on the eastern side of Bishops Rise. It covered an area of 2.0 hectares and comprised part of a neighbourhood centre dating from the late 1950s which included a parade of retail and other commercial units at Hill Top Shopping Centre, a four storey block of flats, public spaces, which included an existing paved area to the front of St John’s Church, storage and industrial units, garage areas and parking courts.

 

The High View road bisected the site on a broadly north-west to south-east axis and links Bishops Rise to the north-west and Northdown Road to the south.

 

Along the Bishops Rise frontage, to the north of Hill View junction was a public car park which served the neighbourhood centre with a garage block to the rear.  South of the junction with High View the shops and business units in the High View Crescent begun, and further south was a single four storey block of 6 empty bedsits and office space which was now vacant, and a further car parking area for visitors to the centre adjacent to the Harrier Public House to the south.  The shopping centre lay broadly to the west of High View, the units were single storey, arranged in a crescent facing west over a paved and landscaped public amenity area which also afforded pedestrian access to the shops.  The servicing area for the shops lay to the rear (east), fronting onto High View. This street frontage also contained a number of lock-up garages.

 

Also fronting Bishops Rise but outside of the application site was the Harrier Public House and its car park, St John’s Church and Community Centre which together with parking areas and open space, stretched to the junction with Northdown Road.

 

The west side of Hill View comprised the rear of the commercial premises within the centre with pedestrian and vehicular access points served the businesses.  On the opposite (east) side of Hill View at its northern end was a free-standing betting office, the Hatfield Town Council depot which contained a number of single storey buildings and further small workshops plus another public car park, and beyond the site boundary was the Jim MacDonald Centre and further car parking and homes and gardens.

 

This application was presented to the Development Management Committee because it was a major development and Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council had an interest in the land and property that was the subject of the application.

 

Hatfield Town Council object to the application for the following reasons:

 

‘Members noted the concerns of representatives from the PCC & Youth Centre at St John’s on the following grounds:

There is insufficient turning room for hearses in the space named Church Square;

There are insufficient parking spaces for high days, holidays and funerals at the Church which would lead to bad congestion in the area;

The Church needs a minimum of 15 – 20 car parking spaces;

There are insufficient spaces generally which will lead to unauthorised parking, the Youth and Community Centre has 8 spaces which will likely be taken up in unauthorised parking;

The plan 3515/C/524 shows the newly refurbished steps owned by the Church that run between the Church and the pub leading straight onto 2 vehicular access points with no means of preventing a pedestrian (particularly a child or person with poor vision) from walking straight into the path of a car or lorry;

The whole plan leads to pedestrian and vehicular conflicts;

There appeared to be no provision for an increase sustainable transport.

Members raised their own concerns regarding the shortfall of 80 parking spaces and lack of disabled access to the Jim McDonald Centre.

Furthermore there appeared to be no provision for electric vehicle charging points nor bike racks and conflict with student parking.

The four storey flats were in conflict with the Church and surrounding area and were unacceptable as over development and out of keeping in the neighbourhood.

The proposed layout would also lead to a west/east wind tunnel through the high rise buildings.

The Town Council request that the Borough Council go back to consult with the Church, business owners and other interested parties to bring forward a scheme which more resembled that which came out of the original public consultation’.

 

Officers announced that there were the following minor errors in the officers report:-

Point 1.3 – ‘Hill View junction’ should have read ‘High View junction’.

Point 2.3 – the end of the paragraph should have read ‘3x3 bed intermediate houses’ instead of ‘3x3 bed social rented houses’.

Point 2.18 – the report referred to High View being one-way south of the new cross road with traffic only permitted to travel in a southbound direction toward Northdown Road when in fact it was one-way southbound for its entire length.

 

Mr J.Walton, Agent, spoke for the application saying that a significant amount of work had gone into the application which would deliver 146 houses across three distinct areas, in keeping with the character of the area. The retail floor space would remain, with the prospect of a new doctor’s surgery if the NHS wanted to take it up. There would be a new play area provided for children under the age of 10. Affordable Housing would be provided and there would be significant Section 106 payments. There would also be a £50,000 community grant provided to make a positive impact.

 

Mr J.Shelford spoke as an objector saying that of the 279 car parking spaces, 219 were reserved for the new residential units which left 64 to share for existing retail units and community use. There was insufficient parking to sustain community use on the site. The parking assessment was carried out during June 2018 when University students would have returned home so some of the parking needs would have been missed. The shared parking between retail units and residents would not work and residents would have to pay for parking in the parking controlled zone in order for this development to go ahead.

 

Mr S.Archer, St John’s Church, spoke as an objector, saying that St. John’s Church was the Parish church for South Hatfield with sixty or more adults in the congregation. The Church was a Grade 2 listed building. The main entrance was at the front of the church, not at the back. The Church welcomed the initiative to regenerate the area but had concerns over parking when the parking spaces were reduced to 60. Many significant spaces opposite the Church would be eliminated. The assumption was that the space opposite the Church was Council owned but it belonged to the Church. The proposals damaged access to the Church and to keep the Church viable, the congregation needed to be a good size. It was felt that the Council had not looked at the impact of the new development on the Church.

 

Councillor M.Eames-Petersen, Hatfield Town Council, spoke against the application saying that Hatfield Town Council welcomed the regeneration of Hatfield but it had concerns regarding parking. There was not sufficient room for a hearse to turn around outside the Church and there was insufficient parking spaces for the retail units. It was felt that the height of the flats completely dominated the area.

 

The Committee raised concerns about the new retail units being provided as

a shell and that retailers who had been in the area for many years were being asked to fit out the units at great cost to themselves.

Officers agreed that the retail tenants would be offered a rent free period to help them recover the costs from moving into the new unit.

 

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors Simon Wrenn and Samuel Kusumu and

 

RESOLVED:

(9 voting in favour and 4 against)

 

That planning permission be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out in report including completion of a Section 106 (S106) agreement.

 

Officers recommended amendments to condition 29 to include the removal of Class A4 and an additional informative for Chalk mining.

 

Condition 29 to read;

 

Premises falling within Use Classes A3 and A5 hereby approved shall only be open to the public between 07:00 hrs and 23:00 hrs. Any members of public remaining in the buildings must have left the premises by 23:30 hours.

 

REASON: In order to protect the living conditions of local residents, in accordance with Policy R19 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005.

 

Informative:

 

The planning authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it but this does not warrant or indicate that the application site is safe or stable or suitable for the development proposed, or that any nearby land is structurally stable. The responsibility for safe and suitable development rests upon the developer and/or land owner and they should take expert advice from properly qualified experts to ensure that the historic chalk mining activities in the area will not adversely affect the development.

Supporting documents: