Agenda item

Report of the Head of Planning.

Report of the Head of Planning for the redevelopment of the site following the demolition of the existing 8 one-bedroom flats building. The proposed building would comprise of 14 x 1 bedroom, 2 person apartments. It was stated that the development would be 100% affordable housing. The building would be sited in a similar location to the existing building, towards the northern side of the plot, set back from the front of the plot by approximately 6.7m. The proposed building would measure approximately 22.6m in width by 25.4m in depth and 10m in overall height. The building rises to three storeys in height with a two-storey projection to the side, designed with a mansard roof form with dormer window features to the front. There will be first and second floor balconies in the front, sides and rear elevations of the building. There would be three flats at ground floor, six flats on the first-floor level and five flats on the second floor. The upper storeys of the building would be served by a centrally located staircase. The development would be served by a parking and turning area at the rear of the building incorporating 14 parking spaces in total (6 of which would be provided within an under-croft area). A refuse store is proposed to the south adjacent to the existing substation and a 16 Secure Cycle Shelter & Bike Stands Parking area have been provided and is located on the north-eastern side of the site next to the secure car park. Access to the highway would be taken from the existing driveway from Ludwick Way on the western side of the site which has been widened to 4 metres to allow passing of vehicles. Pedestrian priority access is proposed through the site and the green space to the south and east. Following concerns raised by the Case Officer and the Highway Authority, revised plans were submitted by the applicant which included the relocation of the proposed rooftop plant on the rear of the building, removal of gates to the car park area, inclusion of secure cycle parking and minor amendments to the proposed access. Neighbours and relevant consultees were re-consulted for a period of 10 days for their information and comments as a result of the amended drawings received.

This application was presented to the Development Management Committee because the application is a Major application and Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council is the applicant.

Charlotte Hagerty, Agent stated that for this site, the existing residential building was deemed not fit for purpose and the site was identified by the council as ready for development to provide permanent affordable housing. Prior to the submission of the application, advice was sought from the planning department, resulting in a reduction on the overall massing of the proposal and an agreement on how to minimise impact upon neighbouring properties whilst maintaining architectural style appropriate to the context.  A transport assessment was carried out by EAS transport planning to determine suitable number of parking spaces for the development. Secure cycle parking has also been included in the scheme. The online consultation was published to neighbouring properties and drawings were uploaded with opportunity to comment and ask questions provided. Elevations facing neighbouring gardens have no first-floor windows to prevent overlooking. Existing trees surrounding the site also offer further visual screening. The mansard roof reduces the visual impact of the street facing elevation. Further to this the building line is set back maintaining a buffer of soft landscaping to the front of the property intending to preserve the character of the garden city. The garden city architectural style is referenced throughout the design in both the materiality and the arrangement of the windows, balconies and dormers. The building will also benefit from the use of the air source heat pumps located on the roof. The pumps are set back from the main elevation and would have limited visibility from the street, they would also operate at low volume preventing any noise nuisance to the neighbours. Existing trees and vegetation retained at the site will be protected throughout construction in line with specialist advice.

Councillor Russ Platt, Ward Councillor stated that he was speaking on behalf of a resident at 94 Ludwick way who also had the support of other residents on Ludwick Way who all oppose the proposal. Residents support the development of Ludwick Green, however they cannot support the proposal in its current form. Residents feel the proposal is not sympathetic and in keeping with the neighbouring properties in the local area where properties are predominately of lighter brick work, have pitched roofs and hedgerows. The proposal’s third storey would start at the pitch of its neighbours roofs and they will be a full storey higher than any building in the immediate area dwarfing those around and dominating the area.  The proposal would deprive the opposite neighbours of light and privacy. The large living room windows would have unrestricted views into the bedrooms of the people opposite.  There is concern about the development of the site and the environmental impact on the garden city by the removal of a substantial amount of greenery in the form of healthy trees, shrubs, hedgerows and grass. Residents urge the designers to reduce the quantity of dwellings and make the proposal a two-storey building. This will retain greenery, provide garden space for new residents and reduce the need for an under croft car park, allowing the development to expand rearwards, removing a need for roof plant for fume extraction and reduce building height. The wheelchair accessible dwellings are badly positioned due to the distance to the dwellings and designated disabled parking spaces. The development is also within the estate management scheme (EMS), the Council should be leading an EMS compliant design and not recommend development that does not follow EMS rules.

Whilst some members liked the high number of one-bedroom social housing units as it was a modern property with enough parking others wanted to see a wider variety of housing mix.

Officers stated that regarding the impact on the neighbours to the east of the development, there is a separation created from the urban open land, there must be in excess of 30 metres distance from the development to their boundaries. There is a sufficient distance away from Salisbury Gardens to avoid any loss of amenity in terms of light, outlook and privacy. In terms of private amenities, there were balconies for the upper floor that would enable them to have some outdoor space.

The ground floor has an area to the front of the development which is adjacent to the urban open land, providing more opportunities for residents to enjoy the outdoors. There are also facilities nearby and services that they could utilise.  In terms of housing mix, the proposal does fail to comply with the council’s policy on housing mix which looks for more family sized buildings, but in terms of the planning balance for the proposal the council does not have a five year land supply. There is also the consideration that needs to be given of affordable housing and the housing team would be happy to enter into a unilateral undertaking to ensure that it does remain in place. This would generate significant benefits to the scheme, outweighing the negative impact caused by the housing mix.

Members asked how much a developer contributes to the sustainability statement. Officers stated that to comply with the conditions, the applicant would need to come up with measures as part of the development to demonstrate a 10% increase over building regulations in terms of energy efficiency. This could be achieved through features of the property, through the fabric itself or through the air source heat pump they are implementing.

Members asked how many EV charging points would need to be provided in order to comply with the planning condition. The original proposal included no details of EV charging points which was questioned by the Highway Authority who requested one charging point per unit. While the council does not have its own policy on EV charging points this has become a building regulation requirement for current and future applications.

Members sought clarification regarding any overlooking of the properties opposite the development. Officers stated that there would be 1st floor and upper floor windows overlooking between the properties but this will be at a distance of around 29 metres across the street and confirmed there is no set guidance on acceptable distances. Officers stated that this would be considered sufficient to avoid detrimental overlooking.

Members asked whether the locations of the disabled parking spaces could be amended as the inconvenient positioning of these spaces could lead to people parking on the streets; adding to pre-existing parking issues in the area. Officers stated that the parking spaces themselves are located within metres of the front doors of the property and are accessible by a pavement on the site. The applicant confirmed that the disabled parking spaces for the wheelchair accessible dwellings comply with M4(3) of the building regulations. The council are conditioning that the units meet the M4(2) of the building regulations so they are adaptable and usable for occupants.  

Members asked about the SP7 policy and how it had been applied. Officers stated the application was a major development to redevelop the site by demolishing the existing building units and creating fourteen units. The council had to consider any polices that relate to the development including SP7 for the housing mix.  There was also the need to address whether or not there is a need for financial contribution as a result of these six additional units which is a separate matter. The application is in conflict with SP7 housing mix however as with every application the council have to weigh up the pros and cons of the development. In this case the council considers that the social benefits outweigh the conflict of policy SP7.

Following further queries about going against policy, officers confirmed that there are a range of issues to be considered in every application. One of these being affordable housing. There will always be a large number of different policies that apply to any application and most applications do not meet every policy. Therefore the balancing act is to look at each policy and decide what weight can be given to each in the overall balance. It was noted that the council does not have to meet every policy for it to be a lawful decision.

Members were concerned about the accessibility for the disabled units and disabled car parking spaces and were concerned that disabled residents would not be able to go outside. Officers said that the amenity space at the front of the property was not ideal but the site was near the urban open land where there is plenty of high quality amenity space for residents. The disabled users parking in the car park had a distance to travel and the parking spaces were not covered. Officers considered having the spaces in the under croft car park would be beneficial but they would also need to comply with the building regulations for accessibility.   It was noted that the parking was based on zonal areas of the town and Ludwick was in Zone 3 and it would be 1.25 spaces per unit according to maximum guidelines.

Members asked about the 1.8 metre fence added as a condition for privacy. Officers stated that on the balcony on the first floor, residents would have views towards the north towards the rear end of the garden of 93A Ludwick Way. Although it is about 12 metres away from the balcony edge to the shared boundary of the garden the officers considered the need for a 1.8 metre tall side screen to avoid the possibility of overlooking.

Members were concerned about the design, size, height and scale of the proposal and the fact that the proposal was in the Estate Management Scheme area. The mansard roof was completely out of character and the design of the building was not in keeping with other buildings in the area. Officers stated that in terms of the design, height and scale, it does incorporate a purposeful stepped down from the two storey development to the north. There was no direct development to the south where the urban open land was located.  It would not be as impactful having the third storey element. The mansard roof is of a neo Georgian design, the windows are to be in white and the glazing panels are larger but there are no particular window design style in the area. 

When asked what weight should be given to the EMS concerns, officers confirmed that Planning and EMS are separate legislation independent of each other. It was noted that the Estate Management Officer was consulted and did not raise any concerns. 

It was noted that the air source heat pumps will be located at the back of the property near the east towards the urban open land.

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

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors L. Musk and J. Cragg to accept the application and

RESOLVED:

(13 in favour - unanimous)

That PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the conditions in the report.