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 to vary condition 3 (flood risk assessment), condition 5 (landscape management plan), condition 6 (cycle parking scheme), condition 7 (green roof), condition 10 (surface water drainage), condition 17 (disabled parking provision) and condition 18 (approved drawings) of planning permission 6/2019/1208/MAJ.

The principle and description of the development would remain the same and no additional buildings are proposed. The amendments include the reconfiguration of the entrance lobby, waiting area, vestry and AV room in the front of house, the office and admin areas to provide an entrance lobby and larger open plan office, the internal spaces in the cremator hall and the road layout. The main alterations to the external design involve the removal of an upper section of the chapel, a reduction in the size of the flower court, alterations to the memorial court and admin block to a more linear form of design and the removal of the level change between the front and back of house of the cremator hall. The works to the cremator hall include an increase in the height of the chimney, but this will be repositioned to reduce its overall appearance. The parking layout and landscaping has also been updated to reflect a more logical layout which aims to reduce congestion.

As the amendments to the approved drawings result in a difference in the footprint compared to the approved scheme, the surface water attenuation figures have been recalculated. Further details have been submitted in the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Addendum which additionally seeks to address the requirements of condition 3 (flood risk assessment).

This application was presented to the Development Management Committee because the application was a departure from the development plan and because the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council was the applicant.

Officers informed Members that two historic planning applications were not listed in the relevant planning history section (section 4) of the committee report. These applications were:

Application Number: 6/2016/2623/MAJ

Decision Date: 3 May 2017

Decision: Granted (subsequently challenged by judicial review and quashed)

Proposal: Erection of a new chapel, machinery store and crematory, to include new car parking provision and enhanced landscaping following demolition of existing chapel, machinery store, lodge house and central colonnade (Granted then quashed)

Application Number: 6/2019/1144/EIA

Decision Date: 3 February 2020

Decision: Granted

Proposal: Request for a screening opinion for Welwyn Hatfield Crematorium South Way Lawn Cemetery

Furthermore, Officers also stated that following the publication of the Officer report, an error was noted by Officers as the footprint percentage calculations (paragraphs 10.13 and 10.20) did not distinguish which parts of the proposal would constitute a 15% reduction from approved. For clarity, the total developed footprint would be approximately 15% less than the extant scheme, whereas the total developed area including the service yard would be approximately 4.5% less than the extant scheme.

In addition to this, Officers stated that there was an error in the wording for condition 15 in the report as the site location plan reference was incorrect, therefore it should be substituted with plan reference 03-91-001 which showed the site in its present state instead of site location plan with the approved building shown on it. 

Members asked whether the reduction in size would reduce the working capacity. Officers stated that the attendance size of the chapel would remain the same and the amount of cremator facilities/committal space in the cremator hall would be the same amount therefore the same number of cremations would occur.

Members asked where the surface water drainage would be going. Officers stated that there are drainage ponds on the site. The recalculations were done due to the changes of size under this proposal.

Members queried if there were parking standards. Officer stated that no parking standards are known and the parking under this proposal was the same as the extant scheme.

The Chair gave an overview of the main points raised throughout the discussion.

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors N. Pace and C. Juggins to accept the application and

RESOLVED:

(Unanimous in favour of the Members present - 9 in total) 

Subject to the conditions set out in the Officer report.