Agenda item

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

The application was for the erection of a replacement dwelling house and associated landscaping at 58 Harmer Green Lane, following the demolition of the existing house, garage and outbuilding. The site was not in a conservation area or green belt land and the building was not listed. The application was before the Committee as it had been called in by Cllr Cragg due to concerns about wildlife. Key issues were heritage, design, wildlife and a late representation from the Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB).

In terms of heritage, the Soper family (collectively considered to be artists of national importance) was closely linked to the site: the house had been built in 1908 for George Soper who lived there with his wife and daughters Eileen and Eva. Historic England did not feel there was enough merit in the building for it to be listed as it did not have sufficient architectural merit and did not evidence how it would have been used by the family for the creation of their artwork. It was believed there had been significant internal changes to the building in the 1990s when Eileen and Eva were much older and it was adapted for their needs. Overall, there was not enough merit in the property for officers to feel the building should remain. Officers noted the wide range of property types, sizes, shapes and designs along Harmer Green Lane which gave an indication of some of the varied types of architecture locally.

The application was submitted with a preliminary ecological appraisal and also a bat roost assessment, which the County's ecology team was content was robust; it had investigated the possibilities of a range of species on the site including great crested newts, toads reptiles, nesting birds, birds of conservation concern, bats, badgers, hazel dormice, hares, voles, otters and hedgehogs. Two conditions were proposed as a result: a construction and ecological management plan which meant the ecology of the site would be protected during construction, and a landscape ecological management plan to ensure the site remained respectful to the environment.

An L-shaped strip of land had been given to the RSPB by the Soper family and although it was not formally designated as a wildlife site, it had wildlife value. Historically, there had been an informal arrangement whereby the RSPB could access the land via the gardens at 58 Harmer Green Lane. The RSPB had asked whether £10,000 could be secured through a S106 agreement to allow for a new access point. The view of officers was that this would not be appropriate in meeting the tests of what a S106 could secure and it was not related to the development proposal in question. 

Simon Warner, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee:

“I am a Director from Warner Planning, speaking on behalf of the applicant this evening. In the speech I would like to take a few minutes to highlight the most important aspects of this high-quality development and make a positive contribution to the site. As detailed by officers, the application seeks the erection of a replacement dwelling at 58 Harmer Green Lane. Our client is a local family who have lived in the area for the majority of their lives and wish to build their forever home to raise their family in. The application resulted in successful pre-application and application discussions with your planning officers to help develop this into the high-quality proposal in front of you this evening.

Within this part of Harmer Green Lane there is a precedent for replacement dwellings consistent in style and size to our proposal. The proposed design is of a high quality and responds to the local character and meets the Digswell character appraisal. The application is supported by a sustainability statement which demonstrates that the proposal includes solar panels, air source heat pumps, high quality insulation, electric vehicle charging, water recycling and high quality glazing. The proposal results in a regulated carbon dioxide reduction of 59% against the Part L Building Regulations and significantly more energy efficient than the current building.

The proposal includes high quality landscaping, tree planting and biodiversity opportunities. The dwelling exceeds the minimum internal space standards and exceeds the appropriate separation standards, and there are no undue impacts on neighbouring amenities. The proposal is located on the footprint of the existing dwelling, maintaining the building line. There are no objections from statutory consultees.

The existing building is not considered of merit in the Council's Digswell character appraisal. The site has been considered by Heritage England who have considered the existing dwelling to be unremarkable. There have been several alterations to the site since its original form. This includes replacement UPVC windows and extensions. Historic England note the former owner's historic contributions. However, the property does not retain any physical evidence of their artistic activity. The application has been assessed by Hertfordshire Ecology and the RSPB who raised no ecological objections to the proposal. The appropriate bat licences will be obtained prior to commencement of works and officers have proposed conditions to ensure this.  There is no undue impact to highways, Hertfordshire Highways raised no objection, and we have agreed a condition for a construction management plan to ensure no impact on the roads during construction. The application seeks the retention of the trees on the site and provides a significant boundary screening. The submission includes protection plans to ensure the protection of the trees and the applicant seeks to enhance this. The Council's landscape officer has reviewed this and supports the methodology and raised no objection. The scheme is fully policy compliant. It accords with the NPFF and Development Plan and achieves overwhelming benefits. As a result I therefore request you support your officer's objective and comprehensive assessment of the scheme and grant planning permission in accordance with a recommendation for approval. Thank you.”

Eckart Loeffler spoke against the application:

“I speak on behalf of the neighbours as well, and we are really worried about this development because this is the key house in the lane, and people locally know this house here, this is Eileen Soper’s book, this is her original idea of the garden, and the whole plot is a nature reserve. We want this preserved. This is not a street, it's a lane, it's a 20 mile zone, there's no pavement, people walk up and down, it's a cycleway. I'm sorry but this is a monstrosity compared to the beautiful houses, this is in a lovely tucked away position. There are only four remaining original houses next to each other and this is one of it, and this very house of Eileen Soper makes the character of this lane, so this is why we are really worried for original houses in one lane. You know you mentioned in your report, it's not fit for purpose and has no architectural significance -  yes, if you are from far away observing this it may well be true, but the significance of this house really is this Eileen Soper, she decorated Enid Blyton's books and Enid Blyton is known all over the world, so this house has a heritage built beyond the knowledge of the applicant. It is RSPB nature reserve and of course the idea of Eileen Soper, gifting this surrounding plot to the RSPB was not to have a strip of land because she was in the midst of it, she was feeding the mice in her shoes, there are lots of stories we know about her. It's a lovely story and so she was the guarantor in the centre and the RSPB was the surrounding plot and you know it's wilderness there, that is the only heart of wilderness in Harmer Green Lane, and we would really like to see this protected. Apart from the carbon footprint which would be beneficial, even though you mentioned 59%, I would say 47.5, it's a ridiculous number. We all know that dissecting the old is probably beneficial. It is an overdevelopment of the site which will affect the existing wildlife and therefore we suggest an extension of the existing building maybe beyond and to the side, but to try to protect a little bit of its original character. Thank you.”

Cllr Julie Cragg spoke against the application in her capacity as ward councillor:

“I'm here tonight because the residents of Digswell and I would point out it is a small part of Digswell, feel they're being got at. This house is historic on its own, they want access to the wildlife part because if they don't who's going to monitor it, who's going to look after it, who's going to oversee it? Adjoining the garden, you've got the flats coming up in New Road and I know Chris will say you're not allowed to consider any other application, but it just builds a feeling that it's not being looked after because we can’t; we can't look at everything in a holistic way, it has to be one plan and tunnel vision. Now I would like the officers’ assurance that we have looked into the badgers, the bats and everything, because we know a developer not far away lied until the residents found the badgers so there is a history, I'm not saying this developer is lying, but there is a history of developers behaving badly and hiding things that they would like to be hidden. I think, is a shame that Planning are now saying they can’t back the RSPB by containing some access to that site because apparently the RSPB owned it, the RSPB sold it when they should have kept some access, I agree, but why should the residents be penalised for that? You can argue the architectural merits of the building, but I am very concerned about the environmental impact on the animals and the fact that residents are going to be denied access possibly, because that wasn't looked at. Thank you.”

The following points were made during the discussion:

·       A member asked whether the Badger Trust had responded to the consultation. Officers responded that Herts Ecology had been a statutory consultee and confirmed the application was acceptable. The developer would be required to build on work done as part of the preliminary assessment, as part of the landscape and ecological management plan. It was not thought that the Badgers Trust had provided specific comments.

·       A member noted the speed limit of the road had recently changed to 20mph.

·       A member commented that the application was for a detached house to replace a detached house which was positive as there had been applications in the area for 9 flats on a single plot.  

·       A member expressed disappointment that Historic England had not deemed the property suitable for designation. The site had been designated a non-designated heritage asset and the member asked how much, if any, protection this afforded. Officers explained it carried some weight but when looking at non-designated heritage assets, they needed to consider what they were looking to protect and whether there was value in doing so. They key considerations were whether the external fabric of the building or the internal layout (which had changed over generations) had architectural significance or merit, and it was difficult to reach a conclusion that differed from Historic England’s.   

·       A member sought clarity as to whether the strip of land the RSPB had used was loaned to or owned by them. Officers said that land ownership was not a planning matter but that their understanding is that it was owned by the RSPB who were hoping to have new access from Harmer Green Lane; the issue was whether it was right the developer should pay for it. Officers’ view was that from a planning perspective this was not something that could be insisted upon. The member queried whether there had been a formal access agreement and officers replied that there did not seem to have been, however there was a site through which the RSPB could gain access if they wished. The developer could theoretically stop people accessing the site now irrespective of the application, as they owned the land. 

·       A member asked whether a condition would be applied that meant the owners had to provide access for badgers.  Officers replied that measures to be put in place would be identified through the landscape and ecological management plan. Herts Ecology would normally look at issues such as two-way badger gates so they would be free to roam, and planning enforcement measures could be used if the agreed mitigation measures were not put in place.   

·       A member felt there was a discrepancy in parking spaces as specified in the application and report respectively.  Officers noted there was ample space onsite where cars could be parked, with a double garage and also space on the forecourt. From a policy perspective, officers were content there was sufficient carparking space on site to accommodate the likely needs of a dwelling of the size proposed.

·       A member asked if access for the RSPB could be secured by condition. Officers explained this was not possible as this would not meet the tests for a condition, and that land ownership was a matter that fell outside of the remit of planning. Nevertheless, there was an option for them to have access without using 58 Harmer Green Lane.

·       A member asked whether the Land Registry showed the strip of land was owned by the RSPB and if so, whether the boundaries fell outside of the boundaries of the property that was to be developed. Officers reiterated that land ownership was not a planning consideration. The RSPB had advised the local planning authority that it owned the strip of land but that was outside of the application members were considering.   

·       A member felt more could be done to identify and promote heritage (including social, cultural and natural heritage) in the borough.

·       A member asked whether, should the application be approved, there would be a period of time where there was no public access to the land. Officers said they were unclear as to whether the wider public had access to the RSPB strip of land but confirmed that there was a location where the RSPB could access their site.

·       A member noted the proposal suggested air source heat pumps might be used and asked about noise from this. Officers responded that some pumps were louder than others so a condition would mean that there was an element of control to ensure that any noise would not cause wider problems.   

·       A member expressed sympathy with members of the public in attendance who opposed the application, commenting that one of the charms of the current building was its ordinariness and the suggestion that there had always been give and take between it and the local community.

·       A second member expressed sympathy with objectors and was disappointed protection had not been offered as it had with Shaw’s Corner, for example. The application was a large site and the member remained concerned about the impact on the RSPB and so would not be supporting the application, as they felt that approving it would create a new problem. Officers responded that the issue was not that there would not be any access; the RSPB was asking for a financial contribution from the developer to provide different access, so there was still a possibility of access, but from a planning perspective it was not down to the developer to pay for it.    

·       The Chair asked how far the landscape management plan could be used as a tool to retain some of the heritage. Officers stated the plan would seek to ensure the developer built on the preliminary ecological appraisal and would look at how demolition of the old building and construction of the new one respected existing wildlife species. It would also set out ongoing measures which were required to be carried out in perpetuity so if a badger gate, for example, needed to be installed, it would need to be maintained and retained. A member asked if this included boundary treatment as there would need to be permeability between the application and RSPB sites. Officers responded that there was a condition for a soft and hard landscaping scheme to be submitted which would ensure boundaries were adequate for animal movement and this would form part of the landscape and ecological management plan.

·       A member asked if the landowner needed to clear the site (cut trees etc) and officers said the trees around the site were not protected and some of the site had already been cleared. Another member noted the rich ecological diversity onsite and in the surrounding area, commenting that trees should not be felled unless it had been established that bats were not in the area. Officers replied that the applicant had provided bat surveys and Herts Ecology was satisfied the information was accurate.  

RESOLVED

(8 in favour, 3 against)

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