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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the erection of 4 x Dwellings with associated amenity and parking following demolition of existing garages.

The application site was located on the north east side of The Commons in Howlands, Welwyn Garden City.  The Commons was predominately residential in character with traditional two storey semi-detached dwellings and terrace rows of dwellings which were located immediately to the north and west of the site and Howlands Baptist Church, Commonswood School and The Woodside Centre were located to the south west.  Approximately 0.4miles to the north east of the site was Hall Grove shopping parade.

Part of the site falls within Flood Zone 1 and part of the site to the east fell within Flood Zone 3.  To the north east was The Commons Local Nature Reserve and East Hatfield Hyde Brook, separated from the application site by Urban Open Land.  The site fell outside of the constraint of the Conservation Area and Estate Management Area.

The site had an area of approximately 0.17 hectares and comprised a Council garage site which contained three single storey blocks of garages in a ‘U’ shape with a central hardstanding.  The blocks were set back from the highway with vehicle access gained from The Commons.  There were 17 lock-up garages on the site of which 9 were currently being rented.

The application was presented to the Committee because the Borough Council was the applicant and had an interest in the land which was the subject of the application. 

Officers advised Members that there were some discrepancies in the Officers report. Firstly a comment was received from Councillor Weston on biodiversity which was submitted and recorded as a neighbour representation and not summarised as a consultee representation in section 8 of the report, however, it has been summarised in section 7 as part of the neighbouring representations received and has been taken into consideration. In addition, paragraph 4, 1.3 of the Officers report, outlines that 9 of the garages are currently being rented, however the garage team has since confirmed that 7 garages are being rented which is two less than originally considered.

Ms. R.Brukiene, Architect, spoke for the application saying that the application would provide four new homes funded by the Council’s Affordable Housing Programme to house local families from the Council’s housing register. The site was underused. There were 17 garages with only 7 occupied. There are 6 parking spaces provided in accordance with planning requirements. The Council was entering into a biodiversity compensation and enhancement plan to support the Commons Nature Reserve. The design was in keeping with the local area. The building would have a high standard of insulation to retain heat and reduce occupier’s bills. Water reduction measures would be incorporated.

Mr. P.Oakenfull, spoke as an objector, saying that he does not object to the change of use but was seeking a modification to the building footprint on the grounds that it was likely to cause damage to the fragile fen habitat by removing linking green space which was used by families in the summer and would encourage people to push into the fen. A hedgerow that was proposed to be removed was part of the buffering habitat of the fen. A minimum amount of buffering to watercourses, recommended by the Environment Agency and the Council was 8 metres. With the minimum distance proposed on this site, an 8 metre buffer cannot be achieved. The fen was a rare habitat for Hertfordshire and this alongside other habitats in the Commons support over 70 species which were statutory protected. The Burnt Mound, found within 40 metres of the proposed building, dated back to the Bronze Age. Its setting was crucial to its preservation.

Councillor J.Weston, Ward Councillor, spoke against the application, saying that she was not objecting to the main development but to the access route. This route was well used by parents taking their children to school and by families and dog walkers enjoying time in open countryside. Blocking off this route takes away from these people. We should be trying to preserve little clusters like this rather than blocking them off.

Officers advised Members that the access route was under the ownership of the Council and there was no public right of way. Private access rights were not planning matters.

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors F.Marsh and P.Hebden and

RESOLVED:

(12 in favour and 1 against)

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