Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

The Committee received a report of the Assistant Director of Planning on 59 New Road, Digswell. This application sought full planning permission for the erection of a two-storey block of flats with a lower ground level (8 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom). The proposed building would be positioned further back into the application site than the original dwelling, in a more central location. The proposed layout plan demonstrates a linear style of development which would front onto New Road. The proposed design approach is modern, with a mixed pallet of materials.

The application is presented to the Development Management Committee because it had been called-in by Councillor Mitchinson.

Philip Hughes addressed the Committee as the agent:

“This is an application that makes effective use of land in one of your existing settlements outside any conservation area, the Green Belt or any areas of constraint.

It comprises of a small infill site, consistent with adopted policy SADM1. The proposal respects and harmonises with the prevalent character of the area, providing a building set in generous sylvan grounds. There are a number of existing apartments at New Road. Similar forms of development have been permitted by your Council at number 61 and 63 New Road, the immediate neighbouring sites to the north.

There have been no changes in circumstances to justify a different approach to this application. The proposal is not overdevelopment of the site, which comfortably accommodates the development at a density of just 23 dwellings per hectare, which is entirely consistent with the schemes permitted on neighbouring sites, and your adopted policy SP9.

The proposed building comprises high quality design and appears as a well designed large dwelling house with a central access that sits comfortably in the plot between the two neighbouring buildings, set a minimum of 7.4 metres and an average of 10 metres from any side boundary.

The large plot comfortably accommodates the building and car parking and embraces its woodland setting. The existing landscape along the road frontage is retained and supplemented with new planting. Only glimpses of the proposed development will be available. This well-screened sylvan development is in contrast to the open-fronted plots that have been developed opposite in New Road.

Access is safe, as confirmed by Hertfordshire Highways following a stage 1 safety audit. The proposed car parking provision also accords with your adopted standards. The space and retention and enhancement of tree and vegetation along both side boundaries ensures that the proposal will not harm the amenity of neighbours.

The proposal safeguards the landscape and protects wildlife. The application demonstrates that protected species would not be harmed, badger sets are located more than 30 metres from the proposed development.

The scheme will deliver biodiversity net gains of more than 27% for habitat units and over 60% for hedgerow units. This is supported by your landscape and ecology officers, as well as Hertfordshire ecology, and the RSPB have confirmed that the proposal will not have an adverse effect.

The proposals will assist in boosting the supply of housing in an area of housing need, without intruding into the countryside or green belt. The site is a sustainable location for new housing development and the proposal comprises a high, highly energy efficient form of development. The development can be provided expeditiously and will immediately account towards your housing land supply. The proposal is entirely compliant with adopted development plans, and MPPF.

Christine Adey addressed the Committee and spoke against the application:

“I speak on behalf of residents who are appalled at the rapid urbanization of the village in order to provide flats that are not suitable nor easily affordable for families.

The design and access statement for 59 New Road asks us to visualise a barn like structure blending into a rural location. The village has a varied range of family homes and small flatted sites predominantly in red brick or render finish with high pitched roofs. This proposal is for an industrial looking building with two storeys, plus another level making it three storeys plus roof.

The recently constructed adjoining two storey blocks of flats, where each designed to look like a large house, but in reality resemble a large office building in size. There is no precedent in the village for a large, three storey, flatted development with an industrial style façade. With only one bus every two days, the car remains the only viable form of transport, so why are there insufficient parking spaces? The proposal suggests on-street parking, in spite of double yellow lines and restricted visibility on an increasingly busy road.

To have a rising two way driveway from a block of flats immediately opposite an existing road junction will inevitably lead to more traffic accidents. Question - in how many rural villages would you expect to find six or seven adjacent blocks of nine flats, with front facades of a similar size to the building we are in tonight?

This is currently what is being built or proposed in Digswell, what we are seeing is rapid urbanization eroding the wildlife habitat and character of the village. How does this patchwork planning process fit together? The village has already experienced infill and twin house replacements and redevelopment of two brown field sites increasing the pool of lower cost homes.

In response to development pressures, this Council produced a character appraisal with planning guidelines for different areas of the village. This appraisal is incorporated within the current Local Plan but remains largely ignored.

The local infrastructure is not keeping pace with developments. 61 New Road is already drawing electric power from an adjacent road due to insufficient supplies within New Road itself. Surface water washes away the road verges, a surface water sewer collapsed at the bottom of New Road Station Road and Hertford Road regularly flood as the water sink is further eroded by these vastly over scale developments. Residents report that some estate agents are actively obstructing family house purchases in favour of development opportunities. Yet recently built flats priced at up to 1.5 million are struggling to sale, suggesting that this development is the wrong type in the wrong location.”

Councillor Cragg addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor:

“I am the ward councillor but it's not a ward, it is one road. One road that if you drive up to the top of it has had five or six properties commandeered by developers. We’re not allowed to look at each one on its merits. Hence Highways Herts County Council keep quiet because it is always one application. It may be 20 cars. Not enough to complain but if you put it all together, it is. If you put all the applications together it, it does look and feel like over development and what to do with 90 odd people they host? The local doctors is in Welwyn. If you’re not well, you're not going to walk there, you're not going to cycle. Buses, as you've heard, are far from frequent, and yet the parking is less than is needed. It's one and a half spaces for two bedroom flats that will probably have two parents and a teenager who's driving. Don't park on New Road itself, and you shouldn't rely on that because there isn't a lot there at all.

Also we are very aware that developers try to get out of their environmental responsibilities, and I know that the RSPB, the badgers and wildlife haven't responded. I know we've said, we're going to do a survey, but who's going to monitor that survey? Who is going to check it? Because it's residents that picked up on one of the previous applications that the developer was hiding it, so who is going to judge that?

It just seems totally out of character and particularly when you consider it's not the whole of Digswell, it's a very small portion of Digswell that all of these nine block flats are going into. We know that number 55 wants to have put in [an application] for 10 [dwellings]. They haven't had that, but they'll come back.

As you've heard, it anecdotal that the estate agents are saying “sorry, that's the developers, if you want to move on New Road” so to me it is totally out of order and the residents feel very let down by planning because we can't look at it holistically, we have to look at it each case on its merits and that allows them to get away with it.”

Councillor Colin Hukin addressed the Committee as a Welwyn Parish Councillor:

“Welwyn Parish Council at recent planning meeting agreed to launch a major objection to this application. We believe that the application to be an overdevelopment of site, over dominant on the street scene and is out of keeping with other properties in the area. We think the plot is overdeveloped, with the loss of many trees and hedges and insufficient amenity space and garden areas. The design of this plot with 9 apartments on three floors plus a pitched roof is over dominant in height and new architectural style, which gives the impression of an office block appearance, is out of keeping with the existing detached houses in New Road.

The plan is for 8 number large 2-bedroom apartments and one very large 3 bed apartment on the lower ground floor. We considered the provision of 12 parking spaces plus 1 visitors space to be insufficient for this development. There can be no overflow parking allowed on New Road at the front of the site. It is noted that this part of New Road is on a bend and opposite its junction with Mornington, and this will result in hazardous entrance and egress from this development.

It must be noted that there are there have been previous applications for apartment blocks in this part of New Road and in each case the majority of the local residents have raised objections to them. The latest application also results in an obstruction of access for the public to the local bird and wildlife sanctuary at the rear of the site. There is no mention of badgers or the protection of their habitat and access paths.

We also believe that the development ignores the Digswell Planning appraisal, which is a supplementary planning document we would urge the Planning Committee to refuse this application.”

Members discussed the application and key points are summarised below:

·        Concerns were raised around whether public transport had been considered as part of the application and the officer confirmed that it had been.

·        A members asked for clarification on what bearing the design code should have on the Committee’s decision. Officer confirmed that the character appraisal had been considered (paragraph 10.22) and highlights were that had been looked and reviewed. Officers considered the proposal acceptable.

·        There was a property at number 37 which was of similar design for the area, which a member felt it would mean this dwelling would be in keeping with the areas design.

·        It was asked what the consideration should be for parking. Officers noted that the parking was not at the maximum level of parking and if the Committee felt it was appropriate the “visitor” parking could be removed and shared amongst the development. The applicant had shown a willingness for this to be included as a condition of the planning permission. It was noted that New Road had a number of commuters park for the train station.

·        The Committee felt that the area would be dependent on cars due to its location and considered whether the development would add to the parking issues in the area. It was felt that the current car parking proposal was inadequate. The Chair commented that the train station was only 700m away.

·        Concern was raised for badgers in the area.

·        It was queried how much weight the Digswell Character appraisal carried. Officer confirmed this was given full weight alongside the Local Plan, and the discussions on how this is referred to is set out in the report.

·        It was asked whether the plan would need to change to mitigate the flood risk. The Flood Authority had asked for plans on the drainage scheme and a variation report. Flood matters are reviewed by the developers and officers. It was also included in the conditions for the application.

·        The County Council as Highway Authority had previously objected to the scheme as the application had not included details of other applications within the area. The applicant provided further information on cumulative effects and the Highways Authority have since reviewed this and confirmed it would be acceptable in highways terms.

Councillor Tunstall proposed, and Councillor Goldwater seconded that the application be approved with the condition that parking is increased to the maximum amount allowed by Welwyn Hatfield.

RESOLVED

(10 in favour and 3 against)

That the planning application be approved with the condition to increase parking in the area.