Agenda item

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the planning permission for the erection of a building comprising 118 residential apartments ranging from 4 to 7 storeys in height (51x1-bed and 67x2-bed) with ancillary development.  30% affordable housing is proposed (35 units) with a policy compliant tenure split (51% social rent and 49% intermediate tenure). The application site has an area of 0.46 hectares and is located to the north-western side of Comet Way at its junction with Jetliner Way.

A single storey electricity sub-station building would be erected to the northern corner of the site, adjacent to the existing sub-station location.

The officer commented that the external materials and landscaping of the development help the area. There had been no objections from Highways as sustainable travel was an option with walkways, cycleways and bus stops nearby. The public benefits of the development outweigh the loss of view to the grade II listed building near the site.

The application had been called-in by Councillor Duncan Bell. Hatfield Town Council made objections over lack of outdoor amenity space, overpowering bulk of development, absence of 3 bed flats and too many flats in Hatfield.

Mr S. Morgan, spoke on behalf of applicant, stating that the site is currently unattractive brownfield land and is recognised by planning policy as a great site for development in regard to protecting green land as climate change issues. It is seen that the site will give a boost to Hatfield Town Centre and the Galleria. The design of the building is in keeping with its location near listed buildings. There have been no objections from Highways Authorities. He states the need for market and affordable housing is significant and ‘critical’ in the district. There is strong policy in favour of the development.

Councillor D. Bell, spoke as ward councillor, brought the item to this committee due to the scale of the development. His main concerns were around the lack of parking facilities for residents and visitors. He comments on the informal parking in the disused bus stop adjacent to the site and the amount of litter there. He proposed conditions for better parking such as formal parking in the disused bus stop or if the developer could gain parking rights in the galleria car park opposite the site.

Some members discussed the potential impacts on the heritage near the site as they felt that the size of the development is too tall and too close. Officers stated that Historic England gave a response with no objections and the councils Historic Building advisor stated there was less than substantial harm. the building is designed to fit into the area using a colour mix, inset top floor and varied transition height to limit the buildings impact on street and the listed building.

Parking concerns were raised by some members. The Officer stated that the development does have enough and is in a sustainable location for use of public transport via cycle and bus routes. A member commented on how greater public transport use and investment would be beneficial as the Council has declared a climate emergency.

Members discussed the comments raised by Hertfordshire constabulary regarding security of the building (entrance and roof gardens) and minimising anti-social behaviour. The officer stated that these can be addressed via conditions.

Members discussed the housing mix of the development. They noted the development is a mix of 1- and 2-bedroom flats and the area is in need of more 3- and 4-bedroom properties.  It was noted that the proposal was not compliant with Council policy in this regard. Additional comments were made regarding the overdevelopment of the site, stating that the development goes beyond government guidelines of number of houses per hectare.  Officer stated the housing supply is only 2.5 years and this will need to be taken into consideration and the development provides policy compliant affordable housing.

Comments were raised by members around noise as the site is on a busy road and the noise data was collected during the school holidays. Officers stated that noise issues were not flagged by the Public Health and Protection officer.

Members discussed whether there was enough bin storage in the development and potential issues around sewage or chemical leakage. Officers highlighted that Hertfordshire County Council find the bin stores to be enough for the site and that if there was any chemical leakage then work on the site would stop. A member raised concerns regarding the smell of the bins in the summer months. The officer advised that such concerns could be addressed by condition.

A member found encouraging comments from Hertfordshire County Council ecological team about adding green space and trees to brownfield site.

The Chair gave an overview of the main points raised throughout the discussion, and all concerns raised can be secured by condition or section 106.

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors P. Zukowskyj and J. Ranshaw to reject the application for the following reasons loss of heritage, concerns over parking and the proposed housing mix and

          RESOLVED:

          (6 in favour and 7 against)

Following the defeated motion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors R. Trigg and S. Tunstall to accept the application and

          RESOLVED:

          (7 in Favour and 6 against)

Subject to conditions and Section 106 agreement as set out in officer report.