Agenda item

To receive a report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

Cllr Watson excused herself for this item as noted during her declaration of interest.

There had been a late representation submitted by the Lead Local Flood Authority following submission of a revised plan showing two visitor spaces to the front of the site; they had asked if there would be permeable paving as if so, there would not be an impact on flood risk. The Planning Officer confirmed there would be permeable paving.

The application sought planning permission for the erection of a 142 unit residential development following the demolition of the existing building, the former Beales Hotel. The application was before Development Management Committee (DMC) because Hatfield Town Council had submitted a major objection, set out in paragraph 9.1 of the report.

The application site has an area of around 0.64 hectares and is located to the north-west side of Comet Way, close to the Comet roundabout. The hotel closed in 2020 and currently has temporary planning permission as a hostel which expires in June 2024. The proposal was for a 5 to 6 storey building. Of the 142 flats, 90 would have one bedroom, 50 would have two bedrooms and 2 would have three bedrooms. There had been a design evolution to the proposed redevelopment of the site; in early 2021, a pre-application enquiry had been submitted for a 9-storey building with 161 flats. Officers had advised a reduction in height, greater separation distance between the neighbouring development at Parkhouse Court and an increased ratio in car park provision. There had been further reductions in the height and bulk of the development during this application submission, mainly to overcome impacts on the neighbour amenity at Parkhouse Court, and the number of dwellings had also been reduced. Officers considered the height and scale of the development would sit comfortably in its context.    

There would be 123 parking spaces in the development including 15 disabled spaces, 2 visitor spaces and a car club space. Following members’ comments at the previous DMC meeting when the application had been deferred, 2 visitor spaces had been added to the front of the site which necessitated a reduction in amenity space there. There were 13 ready to use EV charging points and 146 secure covered cycle spaces. In terms of car parking, the ratio of spaces per dwelling matched that of a planning permission granted in 2022 for 118 flats at the former Volkswagen site which was in close proximity to the application site. While not all dwellings would have a car parking space, a planning condition was included which would ensure no dwelling had more than one parking space. A management strategy for car parking would be secured through the legal agreement.

All the proposed flats would accord with the nationally described space standards and would have either an external terrace or balcony, and each resident would benefit from both private amenity space and access to communal amenity areas. The proposal included the closure of the existing access to the site on Comet Way and provision of a new access 20 metres to the east on the same road. Proposed access arrangements included a setback from the footway cycleway on Comet Way; the Highways Authority was satisfied with this and had confirmed it would result in an enhancement in both pedestrian and cycle safety in the location. All offsite works would be delivered between the applicant, developer, and Hertfordshire County Council.           

Policy SP7 of the Local Plan outlined that affordable housing would be sought subject to viability. Viability in decision making included developer profit as an input. Planning practice guidance advised a 15-20% developer return as suitable. The application had been supported by viability appraisals which were independently assessed by the Council’s viability consultants who agreed that a scheme for either a policy-compliant affordable housing or 100% private scheme including the full financial contributions and a reasonable profit allowance of 17.5% was unviable. In response to issues raised by members at the previous committee meeting when the application had been deferred, the applicant had introduced 10% onsite affordable housing for shared ownership tenure. This meant a reduced profit allowance of 12.78% which was below the lower range percentage advised as suitable in planning practice guidance. Nevertheless, the applicant was willing to take the scheme forward on this basis with the prospect of better market conditions. Review mechanisms would be included in the S106 agreement which would allow the Council to benefit from any favourable uplifts and viability.

When the application was discussed at the last meeting, members had raised concerns about the proposed housing mix. In response, the applicant had submitted an updated market review letter which confirmed there was significant local demand for one bedroom properties and supply was not meeting demand. Officers felt it would be helpful to flesh out some points following the last committee meeting:

-        Affordable housing. Policy SP7 said that affordable housing would be sought subject to viability. It was accepted there was a national housing shortage and that developers would only bring forward schemes if they were profitable; if a scheme was deemed unviable this did not mean that no profit was being made but that once profit was taken into account, the scheme would not be able to produce the level of affordable housing that would be sought. In order to provide 10% affordable housing (shared ownership), the developer’s profit margin would now be 12.78% which was below what national planning policy guidance considered reasonable but this was policy-compliant.

-        Housing mix. Some sites in the borough were more likely to have family housing whereas others like the former Volkswagen site granted permission in 2022 would have more one and two bedroomed properties. The committee needed to consider whether, given that site (which neighboured the application site) had received permission, there had been any material changes that would make it not acceptable now for this site.  

-        Parking provision. Similarly, the former Volkswagen site had approved parking provision of 0.85 spaces per dwelling which was the same as that proposed in this application. Consistency in decision-making in planning terms was emphasised. 

Bridget Miller, agent for the application, addressed the Committee as follows:

“I'm Bridget Miller, a chartered town planner and the agent representing the applicant Hatfield Park homes. We were pleased to hear many elements of the scheme were supported at the previous committee but as recommended, we've since worked with officers to review affordable housing, housing mix and parking. Officers have explained that the scheme has been accepted as non-viable by the Council's independent viability assessors, meaning there is no policy basis to refuse the application on unaffordable housing grounds. Notwithstanding, the applicant is willing to accept a lower than standard profit in order to now offer 10% affordable housing equivalent 15 affordable homes onsite. The review mechanisms have been kept in the S106 to capture uplift if the economy improves. A variety of 1, 2 and 3 bed units is proposed and accepted by officers as fully justified by the submitted market evidence unsuitable for this site.

The implied housing mix behind Policy SP7 is not a requirement for individual sites, it is a borough wide target for the whole plan period. There are inevitably sites elsewhere that are better suited for larger units. Ultimately, there is a proven local need for the housing sizes proposed and the scheme will help meet the shortfall and meet the needs of different households. Therefore, the development wholly complies with SP7.

Additional visitor parking has been introduced at the front of the development to increase the overall parking ratio. Local census data shows the level of proposed parking provision exceeds the likely car ownership levels for the development - the site is located close to services, shops facilities and many local transport options within walking distance. Providing additional car parking in excess of anticipated demand would not be sustainable, desirable or backed by policy. The management of the car park will be secured by planning conditions and a S106 agreement, and there is a bespoke sustainable travel plan and a car club.

To conclude, a high standard of design and residential amenity is provided. The scheme goes above policy expectations to deliver biodiversity net gain of almost 500% and a carbon saving of 37%. The delivery of 142 new homes, including 15 affordable homes, is a significant contribution towards housing supply. Available previously developed land in central accessible locations is a scarce resource and it should be optimised where there are opportunities to do so. I therefore request that you approve the application in accordance with your officer's recommendation. Thank you.”

The following points were made during the discussion:

-        Members welcomed the changes made to the affordable housing mix.

-        A member reflected on the comparisons made with the former Volkswagen site, noting councillors were advised to consider each application on its merits. Officers confirmed this was the case and noted that when similar sites were close together, an Inspector during an appeal would ask why different conclusions had been reached so there needed to be a good reason for this.    

-        A member reflected that a new development at Hill Top was experiencing significant parking issues and felt the proposed parking offer was inadequate. Another member asked if there were examples when planning permission had been granted and parking was an issue which they felt could be further explored. Officers agreed different sites experienced different parking issues and felt it could be helpful to review some flatted schemes that had been built and occupied in order to provide up to date data about the number of vehicles those schemes had generated, as in some schemes it had been anecdotally reported that the number of cars was much lower than anticipated, although this would vary across the borough.

-        A member expressed concern about parking facilities, commenting that having only 2 visitor spaces could be problematic given there were no parking facilities elsewhere in the local area. The adjacent office blocks had a 2-level parking structure and if the developer had adopted a similar design for the proposed application, there would be a greater capacity for parking spaces. However, he did not feel there were strong enough grounds to reject the application on the basis of this parking matter. Officers noted the car parking management strategy would seek to manage how spaces were allocated and that people would be buying the properties knowing whether or not they were likely to have a parking space.   

-        A member commented that the scheme had no social housing and so was not likely to positively impact the Council’s housing waiting list.   

-        Responding to a member’s question, the legal adviser explained that if the sale price was more than anticipated, and this resulted in a greater surplus, that would show up in the late-stage review and the developer would be required to make a financial contribution. Equally, if the costs for the build were not as expensive as anticipated, that might also result in a greater contribution which would come to the Council as an affordable housing contribution.

-        Officers confirmed there was no socially rented provision in the application and noted that it proposed no affordable housing when it was deferred at the last meeting when it had still been policy compliant. Shared ownership would have an impact on viability albeit less than the impact of provision of socially rented properties. 10% shared ownership properties in the development meant the profit would be 12.78%, which was below what national planning policy guidance considered suitable, and if there were social renters then profit would be affected further. The scheme as presented at the previous meeting was policy compliant and had no affordable housing, so officers did not consider there was a reason for refusal.

-        A member asked how the 10% shared ownership element would be secured. Officers advised it would be incorporated in a S106. 

-        A member sought clarity as to what the loss of amenity would be given the 2 additional visitor parking spaces. Officers advised there would be a loss of some grass. The member reflected that a lot of the flats were likely to be student accommodation, there were nearby bus stops and the area was more central than Hill Top.

-        A member expressed concern about the design which appeared insular in terms of amenity/ open spaces and asked whether more could have been done to integrate the site more into the fabric of the wider area in terms of connectivity but did not feel this was a sufficiently strong reason to withstand an appeal.

-        A member asked about electrical charging points and officers explained there would be 13 EV ready to use spaces within the site and that building regulations would require cabled routing to be provided to all the covered spaces. The application was supported by an energy and sustainability statement and officers were satisfied that the proposed measures complied with policies in terms of maximising energy conservation.

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

RESOLVED

(9 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention)

That planning permission be approved subject to:

a)    Completion of a satisfactory S106 planning agreement and the agreement of any necessary extensions to the statutory determination period to complete this agreement; and

b)    The conditions set out in the report.