Agenda item

Report of the Head of Planning.

Report of the Head of Planning on the erection of 34 dwellings of which 35% would be affordable (12 units).  The scale of the buildings would be 2 storey and 2½ storey with all dwellings featuring low level eaves.  The proposed density for the site was 36.6 dwellings per hectare comprising a mix of 1-bed and 2-bed maisonettes; 2-bed terrace houses; and 3, 4 and 5-bed detached and semi-detached houses.  The development proposed a range of house types, sizes and tenures in order to provide a wide choice of homes, able to accommodate a variety of household types and thereby creating a mixed and inclusive community. It was proposed to utilise the existing site access from Hawkshead Road which would be improved as part of the proposals to include a segregated footway into the site and an improved pedestrian crossing.  In addition, a separate pedestrian only access was proposed towards the south-western corner of the site onto the public footway.  The proposals would retain and strengthen the existing landscape buffer along Hawkshead Road and new structural planting was proposed within the site and along the site boundaries.

The application was presented to the Development Management Committee because it represented a departure from the Local Plan and was recommended for approval.

Mr Jonathan Collins, spoke as the applicant, and emphasised that the development would be a logical, policy compliant, and sustainable infill of 34 dwellings. It would provide architecturally sympathetic homes, utilising Modern Methods of Construction. The homes would benefit from photo voltaic panels and air source heat pumps. The applicant had sought to allay objections through addressing parking provision, the utilisation of SUDs, and biodiversity enhancements, including a financial contribution for off-site mitigation.

Mr Simon Polledri, spoke on behalf of the Little Heath Action Group, in objection to the proposals. The greenfield site had not been allocated for development in the existing Local Plan, and approval of the application could set a precedent. The proposed site boundary would be irregular and incoherent. Community engagement had not taken place, and the development was not in keeping with the local area.

Members asked about parking provision, and the suitability of the proposed construction materials in the context of the local vernacular of building materials. Officers set out the parking assessment methodology and a total of 63 parking spaces were proposed. All of the 1-bed and 2-bed units would have access to one space and all of the larger properties would have access to two spaces. This would allow for nine unallocated spaces to be shared and utilised efficiently for residents and visitors. Turning to the construction materials, in the context of using metal seamed roofing and painted brickwork, Officers explained that those were not atypical materials in Hertfordshire and painted brick was particularly a feature of traditional local architecture. Maintenance would be consistent with what would be needed for any painted rendered domestic property.

Members noted the mixed size of the proposed units and sought clarification of whether the gross floor area of the units had been considered when calculating the percentage of affordable homes. Officers clarified that the Housing team had been consulted, and that the 35% (12 homes) was based on the total number of proposed dwellings, rather than gross floor area.

Members welcomed the ambition to provide sustainable and energy efficient new homes but queried how the 10% biodiversity net gain included in the 2021 Environment Act would be achieved. Officers explained the applicant had recognised that the biodiversity enhancements to be provided within the site could not meet the Government’s expected minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain, and that a financial contribution was therefore proposed towards off-site mitigation. However, it was not straightforward to determine the value of the exiting grassland until surveys could be completed in the summer months. The figure initially calculated by Herts Ecology, and referred to in the committee report, was £27,360. This had since been revised up to £54,708. The higher figure would be secured through a S106 agreement, however, the drafting would allow for the contribution to be revised down based on the evidence from detailed surveys, to be secured by a pre-commencement condition, in consultation with Herts Ecology.

Members queried whether the proposed development demonstrated the ‘very special circumstances’ for development in the Green Belt. Officers explained that what constituted very special circumstances depended on the weight of each of the factors put forward and the degree of weight to be afforded to each was a matter for the decision taker, in this case, the Development Management Committee.

The Council did not have a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, a position which the Emerging Local Plan sought to remedy through its site allocations. Officers explained that the Council had already identified the ‘exceptional circumstances’ for the site to be released from the Green Belt and had proposed that the site be allocated for housing in the emerging Local Plan. It had been assessed at the examination and the Inspector stated that the principle of development on the site had been found to be sound, which was then afforded significant positive weight in the planning balance. Officers emphasised the draft Local Plan policies relating to the site should carry significant weight as they have been thoroughly considered by the examination, and the plan, was a considerable way through the local plan process.

Substantial weight was afforded to the provision of market housing which would make a positive contribution to the supply of market housing in the Borough.  Further substantial weight was afforded to the provision of 12 affordable homes, equivalent to 35% of the total proposed.

Another important consideration in favour of the proposal was the delivery of low carbon homes and EV charging. Those factors were detailed at paragraph 10.125 of the Committee report and comprised houses that would achieve a 65% reduction against the standards required by the current Building Regulations, and maisonettes that would achieve a 90% reduction, when compared to Part L 2013 baseline. In addition, all units would have access to an EV charging point. Subject to suggested conditions to secure implementation, those factors were attributed significant weight in favour of the development.

Having regard to all the factors described in detail within the committee report, Officers were of the view that the benefits in favour of the proposal clearly outweighed the harm identified. Accordingly, it was the Officer’s conclusion that the test in Paragraph 148 of the NPPF was met and the very special circumstances did exist to justify the grant of planning permission.  

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

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors R. Trigg and J.P. Skoczylas and,

          RESOLVED:

(9 in Favour, 4 Against)

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions proposed in the report.