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

Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) setting out an application for the change of use from amenity land to residential land.

Site Description

The site at 291 Knightsfield comprised of a two storey detached dwellinghouse located to the south of Knightsfield which was within the settlement of Welwyn Garden City.  The surrounding area was residential in character characterised by residential gardens to the north and west and open space to the south.

The property itself was within a plot with a deep frontage partly enclosed by a front hedge which was indicative of many of the properties in this part of Knightsfield.  A double garage was situated to the south of the front forecourt of the property. The property had a rear garden, an area of approximately 87 sqm.

To the south east of 291 Knightsfield was a strip of amenity land measuring at a width of approximately 14m, a depth of approximately 39m with an area of approximately 546 sqm.  This strip of amenity land adjoined a designated area of Urban Open Land (UOL number 45 on the proposals map) to the south east of the site.  The rear of the strip of amenity land backed onto residential gardens in The Firs. 

The Proposal

Planning permission was sought for the change of use of part of the strip of amenity land (owned by Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council) to residential amenity land in connection with the residential property at 291 Knightsfield. It would be incorporated as part of the rear garden of the property.

The amenity land subject to the application measured at a width of 14m and a depth of 18m.  The proposal was to erect a 1.8m high chain link fence on the three sides not adjoining the existing property and grow a mixed species hedge around the outside of the fence to conceal the chain link fence behind.  The proposed hedge would align with the back of the house.  The existing hedge on the south east and south west side would remain, with the existing hedge that currently acted as a boundary between the rear garden of 291 Knightsfield and the amenity land being removed.

The application followed a previous application at the site for a similar proposal which was refused planning permission for the following reason:

“The proposed change of use of the land to residential garden land is considered harmful to the character of the surrounding area resulting in a loss of openness which contributes to the spacious character and appearance of the surrounding area and the setting of the adjoining area of urban Open Land.  The proposed use of materials and the enclosing of the site would reduce the open space around the avenue, harming the setting, and significance, of this heritage asset which is contrary to policy GBSP2, D1, D2 and R28 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005 contrary to the aims of Paragraphs 132 and 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

The application sought to overcome the previous reason for refusal by reducing the area of land that would change from public amenity land to become part of the garden of 291 Knightsfield.  The previously refused application included a larger area of land along the whole length of the side of the 291 Knightsfield.  The current proposal would retain approximately 20m of the amenity land the front adjacent to the main highway.

Reason for Committee Consideration

The application was presented to the Development Management Committee because Mayor Mabbott has called the application in on the following reasons:-

‘Cllr Harry Bower and I have discussed the latest planning application regarding the property referred to above.  We have concluded that, as this application is very similar to that previously submitted, the reasons given by us then not to approve still apply’.

The reasons provided within the previous application 6/2016/0828/FULL were:

1       “We consider changing use of the land to residential garden space would be harmful to the character of the surrounding area resulting in loss of openness which contributes to the spacious character and appearance of the surrounding area.

2       Fencing off the plot of land will impact on the local environment and ecology.  It contains very mature and beautiful trees and is a haven for small woodland life and birds.

3       Monks Walk is an historic feature and beautiful avenue and it is felt that to replace the open space around the avenue harms the setting and therefore significance of the heritage asset.

4       There are concerns that agreement to the proposal will impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.  With the open space making such a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the surrounding area it is considered the development would be detrimental to the surrounding area.”

Late representation, in the form of photographs of the existing site and the effect of proposals, had been received from the applicant.

Mr Newman-Sanders (Applicant) spoke in favour of the application.

Mr Al-Izzi (Objector) spoke against the application.

Officers, in response to a query raised by Mr Al-Izzi, confirmed that the correct figure of amenity land subject to the application was 252sqm and not 75sqm as stated in paragraph 2.2 of the report. 

The report should read ‘The area measured at a width of 14m and a depth of 18m and the total amount of land subject to the application measured 252sqm’.

Members, in favour of the application, expressed the following views:-

•        The applicant had taken into account the views of the Committee regarding the previous application and had reduced the size of the plot by half.

•        The proposal, in the scheme of things, was considered to be small in nature and would be to enlarge a family garden which would be very positive.

Members, who were against the application, expressed the following views:-

•        The purchaser of the property had been fully aware of the size of the garden when they purchased the property.

•        The Council had a duty to protect and to keep safe the visual amenity of the whole town and in particular the areas of historic interest.

•        The amenity value of the trees on the plot of land and those close to it would be lost.

•        The Council should retain public amenity land for the benefit of all residents of the Borough and should not sell it off to private individuals.

•        The enlargement of private gardens should not be by selling off public land to private owners.

•        There would be a loss of open space and there would be a detrimental impact on the amenity land available in the Borough should this piece of land be sold off.

•        This particular piece of land should be included in the designated area of Urban Open Land (UOL) due to its location near to the entrance of Sherrardswood.

•        The reduction of the application site by half was not an improvement.

•        The reason why the Council was considering to dispose of the land needed clarification.  Should the reason be that the land was too expensive to manage then it should be given to the UOL.  If it was to be a development plot then this needed to be made clear. 

It was then moved by Councillor S.Markiewicz that the Officers recommendation be approved.  There was no seconder for the proposal.

It was then moved by Councillor F.Thomson, seconded by Councillor N.Pace and 

RESOLVED:

(12 voting for, 2 against and 1 abstention)

That planning permission for application 6/2016/1972/FULL notwithstanding the Officers recommendation to approve the application as set out in the report of Officers the application be refused for the following reasons.

The proposed change of use of the land to residential garden land is considered harmful to the character of the surrounding area resulting in a loss of openness which contributes to the spacious character and appearance of the surrounding area and the setting of the adjoining area of urban Open Land.  The proposal is contrary to policy GBSP2, D1 and, D2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005.

Refused Drawing Numbers:

Site Plan & Location Plan received 26 September 2016

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT

Notwithstanding the applicant amending the scheme compared to the previous refusal.  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.