Agenda item

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

At this point in the meeting Councillor Crofton left the meeting.

The Development Management Committee received the application which sought outline planning permission for the erection of an additional dwelling with all matters reserved.  The proposal includes a two-storey side extension which would form the additional end of terrace dwelling.

The application was brought to the Committee as Councillor Rowse had raised concerns that access to the site was restricted and the new dwelling would be unable to apply for parking permits.

Councillor Rowse spoke against the application as follows:

“I understand there are competing priorities to consider when deciding whether to improve this application. If the planning application is approved, then it will represent one further windfall development towards our Local Plan targets. My objection links to key principles of our Local Plan, which I've had great joy in reading recently, finally agreed last year.

Specifically, I believe this planning application is contrary to point 6 of our borough wide strategic objectives to maximise the opportunity to travel by sustainable transport modes and manage parking demand, and against point 2 of essay DM 1, the development will be accessible to a range of services and facilities by transport modes other than car.

The property is indeed served by two nearby bus stops on Woods Avenue called Elm Drive. The primary transport hub in Hatfield is the train station where you can both catch trains and access bus services to wider Hertfordshire unless there is only one service per week from Woods Avenue to the station. The 230 at 14.40 on a Wednesday. The only regular service is the 610 which is fine if you're looking to go to the University campus or perhaps Luton, but not for other destinations.

 I cannot see how this is considered as maximising the opportunity to travel by sustainable transport. Officers refer to ready walking access to the town centre, but elderly residents and those with mobility issues would disagree.

Turning to parking demand, the plans do not include proposals for off street parking, and the Council's SPG's suggests a two bedroom dwelling house in this location requires one and a half parking spaces, and yet the residents of the new property would not be eligible to apply for parking permits. This might be seen as a disincentive for future occupiers to own a car. Although there are suggestions that an easy way round this is to seek agreement with your neighbour to register your car at their address before applying for a permit. So residents of the new property are likely to struggle with car parking and would not have ready access to public transport. In all likelihood, it would exacerbate parking for their neighbours. And, incidentally, two of the three HMOs in Elm Drive had no off-street parking.

Finally, I would like to comment on 12a Elm Drive, which is mentioned by both officers in their report, as well as the occupier of 10 Elm Drive in their rather ironic support of this planning application. 12a Elm Drive was approved before agreement of the Local Plan. Had this not been the case, then I believe 12a Elm Drive would not have received planning permission. Not only would it backfire based on ready access to sustainable transport, but also essay DM 11 point d a reasonable degree of privacy to new and existing private living space and the main private garden area with overlooking limited to an acceptable degree. That's not a problem with the proposal at 32 by the way, but it is a problem at 12a.  As such 12a Elm Drive should not be used as grounds to justify approval of the new build in the garden of 32  Elm Drive as it was approved, before agreement of the Local Plan, and in any event, two wrongs don't make a right.”

The following points were made during the discussion:

·         A member felt that this infill development was a good idea and the Council would increasingly have to look at developments similar to this.

·         Concern was raised regarding the eligibility to apply for parking permits as parking services had confirmed there would not be parking permit eligibility to this development.

·         The location of the development was considered a sustainable location.

·         A member asked whether a cycle shed could be provided but this would be considered under the reserved matters application.

·         Officers confirmed it was not for the Development Management Committee to consider what the owner intended to do with the development if it was built.

RESOLVED

(8 in favour, 1 against, 2abstain)

The planning permission be approved as set out in the agenda.