Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

The Committee received a report of the Assistant Director of Planning on the Former Beales Hotel site. The application site has an area of circa 0.64 hectares and is located to the north-west side of Comet Way, close to Comet Roundabout.  The site is occupied by the former Beales Hotel; a two-storey building with areas of hardstanding providing associated car parking.  There are trees along the boundaries – both inside and outside of the site.  The hotel closed in 2020 and currently has temporary planning permission as a hostel which expires in June 2024.

The application was presented to the Development Management Committee because Hatfield Town Council have submitted a Major Objection. The application had been due to be presented to Development Management Committee in December 2023. However, it was noticed that an amended plan had not been consulted on. The application was removed from the agenda to allow for a full re-consultation to take place. The only representation received was from Hertfordshire County Council’s Highways Team who had raised no objection. 

Bridget Miller spoke to the Committee as the agent:

“I am Bridget Miller, a chartered town planner and the agent representing the applicant. Your officer has explained that the proposal comprises of a sustainable development for which planning permission should be granted.

The application comes before you following collaborative pre-application and post-submission discussions with officers which led to design revisions. This included reducing the height and massing of the building by removing a floor and increasing the top floors set back from neighbouring Parkhouse Court. This change saw marked improvements in the daylight and sunlight results. The proposed building is a comfortable 22 plus metre distance from Parkhouse Court. However, due to the low profile of the existing building on site, it's not possible to maintain current light levels in Parkhouse Court, whilst optimising the use of this previously developed site. The final daylight sunlight results were accepted by the Council's independent assessor as appropriate for this urban context.

As officers have concluded the proposed developments height, mass and appearance would respect its context and cause no harm to neighbouring living conditions.

In terms of access it's proposed to improve vehicle safety and visibility by resiting the existing access eastwards. In discussions with the Town Council, the layout was changed to give additional space for vehicles waiting to turn, thereby enhancing pedestrian and cyclist safety. Based on this revised access design, the Highway Authority has confirmed their support for the proposal and it has been tested by a road safety audit. The access provides the indivisibility required for 50 mile an hour road.

A high standard of residential amenity is provided with good levels of daylight and sunlight and most units are dual or triple aspect. Every unit will have access to private amenity space, communal courtyards and a child's play space.

The scheme will deliver biodiversity net gain of almost 500% renewable energies, 10% electric vehicle charging spaces and a bespoke travel plan. It is unfortunate that the scheme cannot viably support any affordable housing provision currently. The scheme's viability evidence has been tested and accepted by the Council's viability assessors. Viability testing represents a snapshot in time. The Section 106 agreement, includes review mechanisms which mean that at certain points in the future, if the economy improves and the scheme viability positively changes, then affordable housing may be provided.

To conclude the application optimises this previously developed site to deliver 142 new homes. This is a significant contribution towards housing supply in one of the most sustainable locations in the borough, assisting with protecting Green Belt land so there are many merits of the proposal and no outweighing reasons as to why planning permission should not be granted, thank you.”

Councillor Watson spoke to the Committee as the representative from the Parish Council:

“I am Councillor Cathy Watson, and I also sit on the Hatfield Town Council. I speak to you now with my Town Council hat on.

Firstly, I would like to thank the developers and their agents for their engagement. They were good enough to visit the Town Council twice, to discuss the planning application and have responded to some of the issues we have highlighted, such as the height and massing of the development. However, there remain three areas we believe the development can be improved on, and would request that DMC consider adding conditions should it be minded to grant planning approval. The Town Council's main concern is around the proposed access point to the site off Comet Way. Whilst we acknowledge that the developers have made changes to the original design, we are still very much concerned about the safety of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. Local knowledge of this stretch leads us to conclude that it would be better for an alternative access point to the site to be found. By which we mean a little bit further on, and the road that goes to Parkhouse Court, which I believe is called Goldsmith Way.

There is usually an acceleration by vehicles from the traffic lights preceding the proposed access point, which would make turning into and out of the site difficult. This creates an additional risk for pedestrians and cyclists passing the site. We would respectfully ask DMC to consider this issue carefully before deciding whether to grant planning, approval or not.

The Town Council also believes the development can be further improved by the provision of social housing, which has been removed from the original design and would request that the DMC consider appropriate conditions to ensure the housing needs of the area are being catered for. Sustainable transport was another issue which we felt could be improved, especially ensuring appropriate infrastructure for electric vehicle charging. Finally, whilst we appreciate the limited scope for the development to provide open green spaces and play areas on site, DMC should consider appropriate conditions which allow the developers to make a contribution to support and enhance community assets nearby.”

Members discussed the application and key points are summarised below:

·      The proposed development does not meet the housing mix requirements and there is a shortcoming to market evidence. It was queried why there were only one and two bed homes in this development. Officers confirmed that this was to enable a high density and viability. Additional three bed dwellings would affect the viability of the scheme.

·      A member was concerned that there were a number of one bed properties already being built in the borough. Officers stated that the Local Plan looks across the whole of the borough; there would be a mix across the borough across the Plan period. More family housing would be secured at different sites where a greater mix of dwelling types was possible.

·      A member felt that the development was not dense enough, and the application could be higher, based on the location of the site.

·      It was queried what parking was available at the site including disabled and electric parking spaces. There would be 121 car park spaces, including 15 disabled bays and 1 car club space. Based on the location of the site it was considered an appropriate amount of parking given its distance from public transport and other facilities.

·      It was highlighted that there was no affordable housing at the site as the proposal could not viably deliver affordable housing at this time. The Council’s policy allows for viability evidence to be submitted and the viability of this had been tested and accepted by the Council’s independent consultants.

·      Members were disappointed and raised concerns that no affordable units were available at the site. Officers advised that, whilst disappointing, it was important to follow our own policy which allows for such an approach to be taken, when evidenced.

·      A member queried whether the entrance to the site could be moved to Goldsmith Way. Officers clarified that there was no access to the site from that way, and changing the entrance would not be suitable. Details of the access to the site had been provided to the Highways Authority who had not raised any issues, and confirmed it is safe.

·      Concerns were raised about vehicles driving quickly near the site and a member requested this could be reviewed as a condition on the application. Officers clarified that the site had been through a stage 1 safety audit by Hertfordshire County Council, and they had confirmed it was a safe and appropriate form of access.

·      A member asked whether an alternative location for the access would be safer. Officers explained that we did not have a view on this, but that the access proposed had been robustly assessed by the County Council as Highways Authority and they confirmed that the proposed access was acceptable in highways safety terms.

·      One member asked why no conditions had been set out for the Section 106 monies, no affordable or social housing, and lack of clarity around the height of the application were the reasons why one councillor felt they could not support the application. Officers clarified the arrangements for the height as some parts of the building were different heights between 5-7 storeys, and that arrangements were in place to review figures between development and completion to check for any improvement in viability. Early-stage viability review could take place prior to building and the late stage review would take place once the building was 90% complete. Officers confirmed that other S106 contributions would be secured through the legal agreement.

·      A councillor was pleased with the design which included private outdoor space and the reduction of height & mass from the previous application. There should be a condition to maintain the landscaping of the site. Officers confirmed that there were recommended conditions to control this.

·      It was asked whether pre-commencement noise studies would take place. Officers confirmed that there were recommended conditions to control this.

·      Concerns were raised about residents in a near by flat and the reduction of light for them.

·      The officer confirmed that the Section 106 agreement included £250,000 to be split between Welwyn Hatfield Council, Hertfordshire County Council and the NHS.

·      There was a condition for an ecological and landscape plan to be put in place and maintained for 30 years at the site.

·      A member felt that there should be at least one parking space per flat.

·      It was asked whether the pollution levels had been accessed for the site. It was not believed the site was in an Air Quality Management Site and it was confirmed that the Council’s Environmental Protection officers had considered the application.

·      Officers advised that there had been other sites where financial contributions were made where affordable housing could not be delivered on site.

·      Officers confirmed that there was no “visitor” parking available on the site, but referred to the nearby pay and display parking which is available

·      Officers reminded members that there was a need for market homes in the borough, as well as affordable homes, and reminded the Committee that decisions had to be made based on policies. If the application was to be refused and then appealed the Council would be in a weak position.

As Councillor Tunstall joined the meeting late, he was unable to vote on the application.

RESOLVED

(4 in favour and 7 against)

The Committee agreed that the officer recommendation were rejected.

Councillor Broach proposed, and Councillor Kasumu seconded, a deferment to the application to allow officers to work with the developers. The Committee clarified that the following areas were to be discussed with the developer and brought back to Committee:

·        Affordable and social housing;

·        Housing mix;

·        Section 106 contributions; and

·        Parking review.

RESOLVED

(11 in favour)

The Committee agreed to defer the items to allow officer to discuss the above with developers.