Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning).  

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning) on the erection of eight dwelling houses, following the demolition of the existing garages. The proposal included eight detached dwellings, with one four-bedroom dwelling, five three-bedroom dwellings and two two-bedroom dwellings. Each of the dwellings would benefit from two off-street parking spaces and a rear garden. A further two on-street visitor spaces would be provided to the front of plots numbered 1 and 2. The scale of the new dwellings would be of two storeys with gabled roofs, measuring an approximate height of 7 metres. The dwellings would be constructed of a mix of red facing brick and buff facing brick for the walls and dark grey concrete roof tiles. Access to the site would be provided by a single-entry point from Hollyfield to the north of the site. This would be a raised shared surface assess with priority given to pedestrians. The existing tree belt running around the east and south of the site would remain, with additional landscaping proposed within the new housing site

This application was presented to the Development Management Committee because the application was an allocated site, and the Borough Council had an interest in the land/property which is the subject of the application.

Thomas Beard, the agent, stated that the application is for eight high-quality homes in South Hatfield. These are much needed family homes which are all detached and benefit from two on-plot car parking spaces plus additional visitor spaces. The site was submitted as part of the draft local plan 2016 with fourteen dwellings and then reduced to twelve dwellings to comply with certain ecological constraints. It was found that the site-specific constraints such as trees and access to the site made delivering the scheme unrealistic. This was only discovered through reviewing constraints through a series of options in detail and determined that eight units was the optimal number whilst still delivering high quality scheme in line with planning requirements. This also allowed the developer to deliver much needed family homes rather than flats, readdressing the shortage of newly built family homes in the area.

In terms of impact on development in the amenity of existing neighbours, this has been taken into consideration as part of the design. The existing dwellings east and south of the development would not suffer significant impact to amenity due to the dense tree belt that is to be retained. Whilst the proposal does include citing of residential units to the west and border of the site, it was agreed that sufficient separation will remain and the scheme has been designed for no overlooking, namely the removal of any windows on the flank elevation on the rear of Cherry Tree Way. Concerns were raised through consultation on the demolition of the existing garages with the potential risk of asbestos: any asbestos related areas will be appropriately dealt with by a contractor that would adhere to the health and safety legislations. Biodiverse proposal and would enhance the site for future residents and also the ecological wider area. The proposal uses and protects the high quality trees along Cherry Tree Way and will include tree and shrub planting. There will be a tree protection plan for current existing trees in the area and during construction. The agent will be seeking to submit an energy and sustainability statement.

Members asked about paragraph 2.5 of the report and the ecological restraints and wanted to know more about the restraints. Officers stated that the ecological restraints were in relation to the tree belt that was currently on the site and runs from the south to the east. Members asked about paragraph 8.1 of the report and the possible damage to trees and if officers were confident that there was no issues. Officers stated that there were some concerns about the damage to trees and stated that there is a condition for the arboricultural impact assessment. There is also a condition ensuring group protection measure and group protection of the trees. It was noted that only two trees will be removed from the site as they are considered poor quality.

Members asked about paragraph 9.2 of the report and asked that as the land is in the Council’s local plan, an issue had been raised on how many homes could be built on the plot which was previously fourteen and currently is eight homes. Were there any ways to establish more homes on the plot? It was noted that Councillor Zukowskyj also highlighted this in the report. Officers stated that there were issues with the tree belt, access to site, functional gardens and parking provision. All of those elements would have to be amended if the Council were trying to put more dwellings on the site which might affect the nationally described space standards. From discusses there was no alternative and it was the maximum number of homes that could be built on the plot.

Members asked if officers were confident that those discussions explored how many homes could be built on the site and the conclusion was that eight homes was the most they could build. Officers stated that they did have a number of meetings with the applicants, but with the constraints of the trees as they were mature, they have a significant effect on the local amenity of the area. Also if the Council would have put any additional houses in, it would compromise the garden sizes and eight was the maximum number of houses which could realistically be accommodated on the site.

Members were impressed with the considerations about ecology and biodiversity and sustainability and were pleased that a brownfield site was being built on.

Members wanted clarification on paragraph 10.87 of the report and asked how the Council are going to enforce the conditions and what they will be. Officers stated that conditions will be imposed upon the plot which only informed the developers that there is the article 4 direction whilst also ensuring the occupancy cannot be a HMO. In that regard it secures it as a C3 dwelling as planning permission will need to be sought to apply for a C4 dwelling.

Members were happy to see houses instead of high-rise flats in the area as houses are very much needed and were happy that two off street parking spaces were given to each house.

Members asked about the renewable energy, it was mentioned in the report that there were photovotaic (PV) panels and air source heat pumps. These may be close to neighbouring houses so members were concerned whether they are in keeping with the area. Officers stated that a condition for an energy and sustainability statement with all the details would have to be submitted and agreed by the authority.

Members asked about paragraph 10.89 of the report and for the officer to explain what LAmax levels is? The LAmax is the maximum sound level reached during a measurement period and is expressed in decibels. A noise impact assessment was submitted with the application which found that levels exceeded 60 decibels more than ten times in the night so just to mitigate against that a condition for an overheating assessment would therefore be conditioned to demonstrate that windows can be kept closed when warmer temperatures are experienced.

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

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors J. Broach and J. Weston to approve the application and

RESOLVED:

(13 in favour - unanimous)

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions in the report.