Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning) for the subdividing of the existing plot, demolishing part of the existing property and erecting two semi-detached houses with associated parking and access.

Legal confirmed Councillor Teresa Travell could express a view on the proposal and vote despite being a parish councillor as she did not attend the meeting itself, as long as she approached the application with an open mind.

North Mymms Parish Council have objected on the grounds that the application is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and no very special circumstances (VSC) have been presented, it is not a gap site, it has a constrained access on a bend, it would have insufficient parking, it would not match the design of the existing house with front dormers or be subordinate to the existing property and the previous approval is not material as each application should be judged on its own merits. Objections have also been received from 3 neighbouring properties.

The existing property is a two-storey detached residential dwelling with single storey extensions to the side. The site currently benefits from outbuildings and a partially demolished open air swimming pool.

In 2019, planning permission was granted for the demolition of the existing house and the erection of 2 new detached houses with habitable space in the roof. This would have resulted in a net gain of one new house. The new dwellings were considered to be limited infilling development in the Green Belt. An application was then submitted earlier this year for extensions to the existing property including a part two storey, part single storey side extension, and the erection of 2 new semi-detached dwellings. The new dwellings under the refused application were still considered to be infill development. However, the application was refused for 3 reasons: the extensions to the existing house being inappropriate in the Green Belt due to being disproportionate, the design being unacceptable (largely by virtue of the flat roof first floor extension and single storey extension) and inadequate information about highway safety.

The site is a triangular shaped piece of land which is irregular in shape in comparison to the surrounding plots which are more linear in nature. The new dwellings would be sited closer to the dwelling at No.43 Hawkshead Lane which is set back from the road. The new houses are considered to be limited infilling development in the Green Belt, which is consistent with the previous approval. One additional house would be provided compared to the consented scheme.

Part of the existing building would be demolished to make way for the new development. The combined footprint of the two approved dwellings and detached garages under application 6/2019/0844/FULL equated to approximately 355.6m². The proposed site plan for this application has been measured and the total footprint equates to approximately 358m². There is therefore a minimal increase in the size of the footprint compared to the application previously approved for two dwellings.

The proposed design of the semi-detached pair would be of a similar style to the existing dwelling and consented scheme and would feature flat roof dormers and a crown roof. These images presented for the information of members are indicative to demonstrate the impact of the dwellings in the immediate context of the site. It is acknowledged that the proposal would result in an intensification of the residential uses across the site. However, it is officers view that the addition of one more dwelling compared to the approved scheme would not result in an unacceptably cramped layout or uncharacteristic style within the road.

Numbers 39 and 43 Hawkshead Lane are the properties adjoining either side. The new houses would be situated approximately 27m away from the flank wall of the boundary with No.39, therefore this impact is viewed to be acceptable. On the opposite side, No.43 would be positioned approximately 2.5m away from the boundary at first floor but as the house has a limited number of modest windows on this side elevation and potentially even secondary windows. The new house would also have obscure glazed windows on the side which is recommended by condition, therefore the impact would be acceptable.

County Highways previously objected under the last application as inadequate information had been submitted to ensure the proposed development would enable vehicles to adequately turn on site and leave in a forward gear as required on a classified road. Amended details have now been provided and County Highways are satisfied with these details so have not objected to the proposal.  2 parking spaces would be provided per dwelling and whilst this is below the guidance in the SPG (3 spaces) this is not viewed to be so significant to support a refusal. A condition is also recommended which states that if any additional spaces are proposed in future, this information would need to be submitted via condition.

Ecology and biodiversity, refuse and recycling, landscaping and contamination are other considerations relevant to the proposal and it is considered that these considerations can be addressed via the recommended conditions. The proposal is also considered to be appropriate development in the Green Belt, would have an acceptable impact on adjoining occupiers, would be of an appropriate design and would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety. Officers therefore recommend the application is approved by the committee subject to the suggested conditions.

Councillor Jacqui Boulton, North Mymms Parish Council, stated:

This is a rural country road in the Green Belt. It seems that Green Belt designation does not matter. In the NPPF paragraphs 147 and 148, State substantial weight must be given to any harm to the Green Belt where there are no very special circumstances (VSC). There are no VSC which would allow this proposal. The reason for the refusal of the previous 2022 application was that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development and no VSC existed to outweigh the harm. Not much has changed just because two detached houses are now a pair of semis, when the vast majority of the houses in the road are bungalows. Whilst Policy SADM 34 allows limited infilling in villages, Hawkshead Lane is not a village but a small ribbon development along a country road. This site is mainly garden with open aspect beyond. It is however raised above the level of the road, so visibility is not that clear. It is a big corner plot, but with a very restricted access. Hawkshead Lane is tricky for many of the houses and this property is no exception, particularly as it has a narrow steep access on a bend on a road taking much of the RVCs traffic. It is not a sustainable location, residents in this part of Welham Green Ward rely on their cars as there are no pavements on this part of the lane, no buses and the train station is remote. Why should two car parking spaces be acceptable for each semi when Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council's own standard is for three spaces for a four bedroomed house. Approval of this application will reinforce the message that the Green Belt is not a consideration for planning applications. The Green Belt does matter, and even so-called windfall sites cannot override the harm over development and inappropriate proposals such as this will cause.

Members discussed the application and a summary of the main points raised are shown below:

Queries raised in relation to whether the test for limited infilling in a village is met. The officers opinion is that it does comply.

Comments raised regarding visibility for vehicles. Officers confirmed the access is existing and there has been no objection from Highways.

The NPPF says the council should give substantial weight to developments that harm the Green Belt. There are exemptions on developments that constitute infilling so officers opinion is that the very special circumstances test is not required in this instance.

Concerns raised in relation to whether this development is a village or not, it's subjective and although we've had a recent appeal decision, it is for Members of the Committee to decide whether this constitutes a village or not.

Concerns raised in relation to the parking, specifically, that the parking assumes the ability to walk to nearby settlements and to walk to the bus stop however, there is no pavement directly opposite or directly adjacent to this property. The two parking spaces do not meet the recommended three spaces as per the Council's parking standards. Officers confirmed the Council’s SPG standards are not consistent with the NPPF therefore an interim policy sets out that applications have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Concerns raised that due to the location of the property on a hill, by a very narrow road of two-way traffic, whether this still holds true. There has been no objection from Highways on pedestrian safety due to a lack of a footpath.

Concerns raised in relation to design. Officers were of the view that the road is varied in character and the design of the new dwellings takes into consideration the character of the existing house.

Members need to consider that the council has no 5-year housing land supply, which is a material consideration.

The overall footprint is only circa 3 metres square more than already has been approved.

Matters such as ecology, biodiversity, refuse, landscaping, contamination have been considered and can be secured by decision.

There was a question raised that if this application was to be refused tonight, could the development go ahead with the previous plan. Officers advised that the previous consent expired in June, however the applicant would be able to resubmit should they wish to, and then this would be considered against the relevant national and local planning policies in that scenario.

Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor James Broach and seconded by Councillor Roger Trigg to approve the application.

RESOLVED:

(7 in favour, 6 against)

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