Agenda item

Report of the Head of Planning.

Report of the Head of Planning on the erection of a 6 storey building comprising 80 flats (30 1-bed and 50 2-bed). A total of 74 parking spaces are proposed and space for the storage of 80 cycles.

The site (which is some 0.43 hectares in size) is located to the south of Queensway and the north of Link Drive. The site is currently used as a surface car park which has 114 spaces (long stay). The car park is operated by the Borough Council. Vehicular access to the site is from Link Drive and there is pedestrian access to the site from the town centre (via both a pedestrian crossing and underpass further to the north-east).

The planning committee resolved to grant planning permission on 16th July 2020 subject to completion of a S106 agreement. Lovell have since been appointed as a developer partner to take forwards the scheme, as well as the project at One Town Centre (planning application ref: 6/2019/2430/MAJ).

Through the design development, Lovell are seeking to make a number of amendments to both schemes. At the time it was intended that minor material amendment (s73) applications would be submitted for both applications, however due to delays in signing of the S106 agreement for Link Drive it has been agreed that the proposed amendments will instead be secured under the current application (ref: 6/2019/2431/MAJ). As such, Lovell are hereby submitting an amended set of plans and reports for consideration.

The application was presented to the Development Management Committee because the application is a major development and the Borough Council is the applicant. The application is also required to be presented alongside the application for One Town Centre (6/2021/1987/VAR) as Lovell intend to move all affordable housing units from this application, Link Drive, to One Town Centre.

Officers advised that the developments in the emerging local plan would not have an impact on the decision of the application. This is primarily because the application had already received a resolution to grant planning permission but a section 106 agreement was not signed.

Elizabeth Beighton, spoke as the agent and stated that the application sought to deliver a more sustainable development arising through changes to legislation. The scheme would deliver high quality attractive development and it did have an acceptable relationship with the heritage assets and the environmental area and residential amenities. There would be 25% EV charging points in the car park which is an increase from the previous application and is a benefit associated from the changes. The proposal to re-locate the 20 affordable housing units from this site to 1 Town Centre was made following extensive discussions with the Council’s housing team. Management of the affordable housing block would help with the maintenance of the communal spaces and the exterior of the building. This will be difficult if there are mixed tenures within the block.  The application delivered a policy compliant level of affordable housing. 

Adam Edwards, spoke on behalf of WelHat Cycling, stating that the car park is a crucial link between the cycle path along Woods Avenue and the cycle path along the Town Centre to the Station. It is not regarded as a cycle path but is a safe linkage between these two routes. The cycle path is a crucial path along the infrastructure in Hatfield.  The Cycling club do not object to the proposed development itself but did object to the lack of cycle provision in the development. There was a walking route going through the site but not a cycle route. The cycling club would withdraw the objection if a new cycle route was provided to the west of the skate park which would directly link the Link Drive junction to the cycle path along Queensway. The committee was asked to add a requirement for 50 metres of cycle path to the west of the skate park to link the two cycle paths together. 

Councillor Jackie Brennan, spoke on behalf of Hatfield Town Council, stated that whilst the Town Council welcomed the investment in Hatfield and the rejuvenation of the Town Centre, it had concerns about the development.  Firstly there was a lack of 3 or 4 bedroom properties. In the officers’ report, it stated that housing requirement for 2013 to 2032 was 63% 3 and 4 bed properties. The Town Council also welcomed the switch to climate friendly heating and electric heating, but questioned why 80 individual air source pumps were chosen ahead of a whole block or communal heating option. Concerns were raised with the proposal to locate all the affordable housing at 1 Town Centre. As stated by an officer from the Borough Council on 18 November 2019, that 25% of homes on this site should be affordable, and the Town Council would strongly prefer for this to be enforced. The Town Council also raised concerns about the 74 car parking spaces provided at Link Drive for residents and visitors, advising that this was inadequate as most of the flats were 2 bedrooms. It was noted that on the 20 November 2019, the Borough Council parking officer stated that 80 parking spaces in the development will be restricted to residents and not visitors and residents would not be eligible for permits in the surrounding areas. The Town Council also proposed that the planning permission should have a condition which sought to protect the skate park and ensure it was maintained as required.

Members asked about the location of bins in the development. Officers confirmed that following amendments to the size to the numbers of bins stores, client services confirmed that the proposed bin stores were sufficient to provide for the required number and size of bins. County Highways had considered the bin storage to be acceptable and confirmed the access to the site for refuse vehicles was acceptable.  The officer had included a condition to be discharged prior to the application of the development that waste bins and bin storage facilities shall be provided in the application.

Members were concerned about the parking in the proposed development. Concerns were raised that more parking was needed to ensure visitors to the town centre were able to park.

Members were concerned about the water stress levels. Officers stated that it was in the informative section of the report provided an opportunity for a statutory technical consultee to make the applicant aware of the issue with the area. The officer dealing with the case did not feel it to be a material planning consideration otherwise it would have been addressed.

Members asked if they could accept the requirements asked by the WelHat Cycling objection on creating a new cycle path which would also help encourage people to cycle more in the town centre. Officers stated that there is no policy requirement for a cycle route to be provided. If there were to be a cycle route provided then it would involve substantial amendments to the application. It would need to likely be secured by a section 106 agreement. It was stated that that the cycle routes are public rights of way so will fall under Hertfordshire County Council and they will have the powers to create a cycle path. The site itself provides more than adequate cycling parking facilities which will encourage cycling. Officer stated that there was no formal route through the car park and it will be outside the scope of the application to try and insist upon a cycle route.  Members also enquired whether a condition could be introduced to protect the skate park as suggested by the town council. In regards to the skate park, officers stated that there are legal tests for planning conditions and one of them was that it must relate to the development permitted so it will not be relevant for the application.

Members were still concerned about the affordable housing. Members asked if 25% of affordable housing could be added to the development instead of all being at 1 Town Centre.   Officers stated that in terms of policy the two sites would be linked by a section 106 agreement so together they would deliver policy compliant affordable housing.

Members noted the issue with the choice of 80 air source heat pumps being used at the development instead of one communal system. Members asked if a condition could be added to affect this. Officers advised that give that this was what was being proposed by the developer having considered the technical requirements of the building, it would be difficult for the Committee to add a condition for an alternative heating solution.

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

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors N. Pace and S. Tunstall and

RESOLVED:

            (9 in favour, 2 abstentions, 2 against)

That planning permission be approved subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 planning agreement and the agreement of any necessary extensions to the statutory determination period to complete this agreement for.