Agenda item

Report of the Head of Planning.

Report of the Head of Planning on the expansion and adaptation of the existing surface car park, including construction of a new single suspended level parking deck, to accommodate 490 parking bays in total. The proposed expansion would result in an increase of 156 car parking spaces. The proposed open aspect car parking deck would have an area of 4342sqm and would accommodate 191 parking spaces. The upper deck would be accessed via a ramp which had a total width of approximately 9.7m, located roughly in the centre of the building. Vehicular access to the car park is from The Campus at a left in / left out priority junction. There would be three pedestrian accesses via the proposed staircases to the upper deck.  The upper deck would measure approximately 75m in length, 63m in width and would be around 5.5m in height to the top of the barriers and 7.5m to the top of the proposed staircases. The deck would be constructed from a steel frame structure with steel cladding, aluminium cladding fins and open mesh barriers forming an enclosure to the structure at first floor level. This would be lit by new lighting columns split across the deck.  The proposals would also require a minor reconfiguration of the existing surface parking layout to accommodate the upper deck, resulting in a reduction of parking spaces at the ground floor from 344 to 299.  It was important to note that whilst this is a standalone application, it is linked to a wider development in the area, as this is intended to consolidate parking from elsewhere to enable other sites in the town centre to be redeveloped (notably The Campus East Car Park). As such, this proposed additional parking is a replacement rather than additional parking for the town as a whole.

Dai Hannaford, spoke as the agent, stated that Welwyn Garden City had potential to enhance its facilities in the town and the additional deck at Campus West would facilitate changes to the town. The contractor had been responsible for high quality car park designs which included the new multi storey car park in Hatfield. The design of the carpark on a brownfield site arose through consultations, all of whom agreed with the design. It was stated that protecting trees was always essential and more landscaping would be added to the site. The development would help local residents coming to the town, would have EV charging and cycle storage. This development would pave the way for future residential developments in other parts of the town.

Karen Winbow, spoke as an objector, stated that the development did not comply with a range of policies, would be built in a conservation area and cause harm to heritage assets. The lighting would exacerbate the development, and she felt the design was ugly and basic. It was stated that there was a reduced need for parking due to behavioural changes since the start of the covid19 pandemic and the public’s view had been ignored. Proposals for were suggested of adding screening or a wall to the north of the development to limit light and noise impacts on residents.

Councillor Sunny Thusu, spoke as District County Councillor, stated there was no objection to the plans, but there were some concerns around the trimming of the trees.  The development would have greater visibility to residents during the winter and there was nothing in the proposals to encourage and insist on evergreen trees. It was stated that greater foliage would also protect against lighting. Questions were asked about why the car deck would need to be lit throughout the night and suggestions were made to consider switching the lights off rather than dimming. It was stated that the car park could be closed at night to stop any anti-social behaviour.

Councillor Frank Marsh, spoke as Ward Member, stated that they would like to see the car park attractive and blended in. Disappointment was expressed over the design in a conservation area. It was felt that the lighting on the upper deck would be too much and there was a lack of trees to protect against light pollution. It was expressed that there was insufficient cladding to the north to limit noise and light to nearby residents. Additionally, the development would be too close to woodside house, and the carpark did not need to be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Councillor Flavia Wachuku, spoke as Ward Member, raised issues brought forward by residents. It was feared the impact of the lighting would be too great and there were suggestions that the lighting could be modified if it was too bright, with lights on the lower level dimmed to limit lighting impacts. There was a lack of deciduous trees such as evergreen or broadleaf to limit residential views to the site and these trees would retain the current aesthetic. There were concerns over cladding to the north and west as the proposal did not have enough to limit impacts to residents. Concerns were raised over the opening hours and potential anti-social behaviour, which might mitigated through greater use of CCTV cameras. 

Members sought clarification on the current car park lighting and opening hours. Officers stated the lighting on site was 24 hours, 7 days a week at present and the proposal would have the column lighting dimmed at night and include shield scheme to limit light impacts. Furthermore, Officers confirmed that the Environmental Health Officer stated that there would be no material increase of light pollution from the development. Members asked whether the new lighting columns were the same as the current ones and asked whether the lighting regime could be less obtrusive. Officers stated that the height of the columns would be the same, so the spread of light is no greater and potentially lower due to the shield scheme.

Members stated that if the car park closed at night, then people may get trapped in, and it was worth noting that that lots of people use the car park, and not just those visiting Campus West for the Cinema.

Members queried how much of an issue anti-social behaviour was on the site and expressed that there was an opportunity to use technology and resources such a proximity sensor lighting at night. Members noted that there was a need to have sufficient lighting for the protection of residents.

Members asked if a condition could be added to require greater landscaping and specifically include deciduous flora. Officers stated that this could be done by changing the wording to include evergreen and broadleaf, whilst confirming that the current proposal would see the vast majority of trees on the site retained.

Members sought clarification on the net biodiversity gain and the Tim Moyer survey findings. Members felt that due to the proposal being from the council it would set a precedent to have a pond or bug hotel to improve the biodiversity. Officers stated there would be an increase of biodiversity and a condition was there for mitigation measures. The Tim Moyer survey found there would be no harm to wildlife and Herts Ecology raised no concerns. Officer assured members that the condition was there to improve and create biodiversity.

Members considered the visual impact and design in a conservation area, and in particular did the proposal meet current policies. Officers stated that Historic England and the Conservation Officer did not raise ant concerns to the proposal on design grounds but did raise concerns over the scale of the building and the proposed lighting. Overall, they deemed the impact of the proposal to have a low level of less than substantial harm which should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme. Members queried the adherence to the WGC2120 policy. Officers stated that the policy had not been formally adopted yet and therefore limited weight could be placed on it. Members considered SP16 with regards to the vitality of land use. Officers deemed the proposal acceptable in this area. Members discussed potential non-compliance with policies D1, R19 and SD1, Officers stated that the reason for compliance was set out in the officer report. Members considered whether carparks were in keeping with the principles of a garden city, before noting that the town was already served by several carparks, including those with more than one deck.

Members asked about the parking spaces to the north of the site, closest to the greenway. Officers stated that the current spaces on surface level would be retained, and the new building would be set into the site away from the greenway.

Members stated that the increase in car parking spaces was less than a third and there may be less need for parking spaces due to people working from home due to covid19. Members also noted the relative size of the investment for a limited increase in parking spaces. Officers stated that the overall strategy of the town centre parking would be to assume the loss of parking facilities at Campus East. There would therefore be an overall reduction in parking spaces which is in accordance with policies to promote sustainable travel to the town.

Members discussed EV charging within the development. Some concerns were raised about the initial number proposed and Members expressed support for at least 10% of spaces being EV charged as a condition. It was stated that HCC policy was not to have EV charge points on the road therefore it would be reliant on carparks to provide the 10% would be desirable by HCC. Officers stated that the number of EV charge points above the proposed were reliant on local grid availability. Member stated that any EV charge points were of benefit.

Members expressed support for the design of the carpark and stated that better parking facilities will attract people to the town.

The Chair gave an overview of the main points raised throughout the discussion and concerns raised could be secured by condition.

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors A. Hellyer and S. Tunstall to accept the application and

RESOLVED:

          (11 in favour, 1 abstention, 1 against)

Subject to conditions set out in the officer report and,

a)     A change in the landscaping condition to include broadleaf and Evergreen planting