Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance).

Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) setting out the application for the erection of replacement building containing five flats with forecourt parking following demolition of existing house.

 

The application site was situated on the north side of Brookmans Avenue and consisted of a detached two storey dwelling with pitched roof and an attached garage and front and rear gardens.  The adjoining properties were detached houses.  The surrounding area was residential in character and appearance comprising predominantly of very substantial detached houses of varying designs.  Properties had long frontages and were set back from the carriageway by a generous verge.  The western end of the avenue terminated at Bradmore Green, where a small but diverse shopping centre enclosed a well-tended public realm open space.  Slightly further to the west was the Brookmans Park railway station.

 

Reason for Committee Consideration

 

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because the North Mymms Parish Council had raised objection to the scheme.

 

A ‘Call In’ had been made by Cllr Boulton on grounds that increasing the number of flats to five reinforced the Council's previous objections and the non-gateway position on the development was unacceptable.

 

Relevant Planning History

 

Planning application ref. S6/2014/2242/FP for the demolition of existing dwellinghouse and erection of new building comprising three three bedroom flats was refused in October 2014.  However, the application was subsequently allowed on appeal in January 2016. 

 

In summary the Planning Inspector stated among other things that she agreed with the Council that “Brookmans Avenue is a distinctive street scene and that properties appear to be predominantly dwellings with single households.  I also appreciate that the nearby Bradmore Green, with what appears to be flatted development above the shops, has a different character and context compared with Brookmans Avenue.  However, the flats proposed in this instance would be spacious and well-appointed, and located within a building which would be compatible with the street scene and with a large rear garden.  Consequently, I consider the modest increase from one to three households on what is a very generous plot, would not be to the material detriment of local character.”  She stated further that “although I do not consider the development would enhance the area architecturally, neither would it cause significant harm.  There is no reference in Policy D2 to types of occupancy, or guidance in respect of the form or pattern of development, other than in terms of overall design and harmonisation.  Consequently, I find no conflict with Policy D2.”  And that the development would be compatible with the character of Brookmans Park, and therefore there would be no conflict with Policy GBSP2.  Accordingly, the principle of a flatted residential development on the application site had been established by this appeal decision and can no longer be a reason for refusing similar planning applications.

 

(Details of the Planning Inspector’s decision was set out at paragraph 4.2 of the report of Officers).

 

The approved flatted development had a footprint of approximately 284sq.m while that of the current scheme would be approximately 316sq.m.  An increase of 10 percent.

 

North Mymms Parish Councillor Tony Ginsberg spoke against the application.

 

Members noted that there had been much redevelopment in the area, where smaller dwellings had been extended or replaced by larger dwellings.  However, there were no other flatted developments which were considered to be within the context of the application site.

 

During the discussion which ensued the following comments were made by Members of the Committee:

 

Against the proposed application

 

Impact of the Proposed Development on the Site

 

·         Members, referring to the extract of the Planning Inspector’s statement contained in the Officer’s report, were of the view that the proposed development was detrimental to the local character, which would be fundamentally changed should five flats be built on the site.

·         There were amenity issues regarding the impact the proposed development would have on the area.

·         The application for five flats was a speculative development and an over development of the site. 

·         Three flats were sufficient for the site and location.

·         The proposal of five flats was considered to be an excessive mass with inadequate parking which was below the Council’s parking standard. 

·         It was understood that one of the adjoining properties had also applied for planning permission for flats.

·         The dormer windows contained in the roof slope would be out of keeping with the character of the area and would not be compatible with the street scene.

·         The existing property had two stories with no dormers.  The proposed development had front dormers.  There were no dormer windows in Brookmans Avenue.

·         Currently there were no flats in the road only at gateways on corners.

·         Should the proposed development go ahead, significant problems would be experienced in the area with regards to the amenity issues and traffic problems. 

·         The proposed development would cause significant harm to the area.

·         The increase of one dwelling to three was acceptable.  However one to five dwellings was not as this would be adding to the parking problem and congestion in the village.

 

Issues Related to Parking and Vehicle Movements

 

·         All vehicles would enter and leave the site via the existing vehicular access in Brookmans Avenue, an already very busy road with parked cars.

·         The proposal would not alleviate the parking issues currently experienced by local residents.

·         The assumption had to be made that, due to the price of each individual flat, there would be two cars per flat despite its close proximity to the railway station.  The purchasers of the properties would be independently minded and would therefore, in their view, require a car each.

·         The proposal to provide spaces for eight cars/vehicles to park within the site was inadequate for the proposed increase in flats.

·         The number of car parking spaces was below the Council’s minimum standard. 

·         The additional vehicles parking on Brookmans Avenue would cause increased congestion.  Problems were already experienced with regards to parking for the shops, which already backed-up on Brookmans Avenue and the proposed development would exacerbate the current situation.

 

In favour of the proposed application

 

Impact of the Proposed Development on the Site

 

·         The bulk of the proposed development would not be out of character of the area.

·         As there was very little difference in the height of the existing property and that of the proposed development.  The height would not be significant and would not be noticeable.

·         The difference was in the roof shape and the number of occupants using that space.  The design of the existing premises were almost the same as that of the proposed building.

 

Issues Related to Parking and Vehicle Movements

 

·         Due to the properties being located near to the railway station and shops the occupants would not need two cars as the buyers would take the parking situation into account and would walk to the shops.

·         It was the responsibility of the purchasers to make themselves aware of the parking arrangements and would take this into account when proceeding with the purchase.

 

It was moved by Councillor P.Shah, seconded by Councillor A.Chesterman and lost, 6 votes for and 9 against, against the Officer’s recommendation that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions contained in the report for the erection of replacement building containing five flats with forecourt parking following demolition of existing house.

 

It was then moved by Councillor S.Markiewicz, seconded by Councillor N.Pace and

 

RESOLVED:

(9 voting for, 6 against)

 

That planning permission for application 6/2016/1778/FULL notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation for approval be refused for the following reason:

 

With regards to the decision of the Planning Inspectorate (APP/C1950/#W/15/3128952) the increase in the number of flats from the permitted three to five represents over development of the site.  Insufficient parking would be provided in an area where there is a high parking demand.  The proposal fails to respect and relate to the character and context of the locality and would have a material and harmful effect contrary to saved Policies GBSP2 and D2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Refused Drawing Numbers:

 

Plan Number	Revision Number	Details	Received Date
419814/6		Existing Site Plan & Street Scene	31 August 2016
419814/7		Proposed Plans, Section & Elevations	31 August 2016
419814/8	A1	Proposed Site Plan & Street Scene	20 October 2016
		Location Plan	31 August 2016
419814/9		Existing Plans & Elevations	13 September 2016
419814/10		Proposed Site Plan	20 October 2016
		Bat Mitigation Plan (Ecology Report) - 11 Brookmans Avenue	29 December 2016

 

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT

 

The decision has been made taking into account, where practicable and appropriate the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and material planning considerations do not justify a decision contrary to the development plan.