Agenda item

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 restaurant (A3) to residential (C3) and the erection of single storey and first floor rear extension and subdivision into four flats (2 x 1 bedroom flats and 2 x 2 bedroom flats).

Site Description

The application site comprised an end-of-terrace, two-storey property on the west side of Park Street in the Old Hatfield Conservation Area. 

The building had been vacant for approximately a year and had previously used as a restaurant at ground floor since 1977 (S6/1977/0627/FP) and a three bedroom flat at first floor.  The building faced east onto Park Street and the south side elevation abuts the pedestrian alley between Park Street and the public car park accessed from Arm and Sword Lane. 

The rear yard of the site was accessed from the footpath and provided access via an external stair to the first floor flat.  On the far side of the footpath was the Horse and Groom Public House.  To the north side, the building adjoined a two storey residential block (Archway House).  To the rear of the property was a small electricity sub-station and a single storey garage that had a commercial use and opened onto the public car park to the rear.

The Proposal

Full planning permission was being sought for the following:

•               Change of use of the ground floor from restaurant to two residential units: 1 x 1 bedroom flat and 1 x 2 bedroom flat;

•               Subdivision of the first floor into two residential units: 1 x 1 bedroom flat and 1 x 2 bedroom flat;

•               1.8m deep rear extension at first floor to enclose the area used as an external landing (approximately 8.5sqm).  The walls would be red brick to match existing on the south elevation (facing the alley), render with horizontal timber cladding to the gable to replicate the existing rear elevation;

•               Extension to deepen the rear/side extension by 1.5m.  Floor-space increase (6sqm each at ground and first floors).  The other elevations would be rendered to match the existing rear extension. Increase in ridge height from 5.8m to 6.4m, link into the rear main roof and be retiled to match the main roof.  Increase in eaves height 0.8m;

•               Replacement of side window with a door at ground floor and installation of windows in the rear elevation.  Alterations to size of windows in first floor side elevation;

•               Remaining rear yard area (approximately 34sqm) to provide communal amenity area, cycle parking and bin stores.

Reason for Committee Consideration

The application was presented to the Development Management Committee because Councillor Broach has called it in for the following reasons:

“The proposal has insufficient parking provision and there are too many units being cramped into too small a space.  It marks a drastic change in an historic part of our Borough in what has been a retail unit for as long as most people can remember.

There are also often reports in the national media of complaints being levied against existing licensed premises when new build properties are built in close proximity.  I would like consideration to be given to the fact that this proposal neighbours the Horse and Groom pub, which has been part of Old Hatfield for centuries, and that protection is given this premises from complaints from neighbours (were this proposal to go through) – subject, of course, to the Horse and Groom being run in accordance with its licence conditions.”

Officers proposed an amendment to Condition 2 to add the following words after sub point (g) “ Subsequently all activities on site shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan and Construction Traffic Management Plan”.

Hatfield Town Council had also objected to the proposal.

Dawn Brodie, (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

John Penney, (Objector) spoke against the application on behalf of the Old Hatfield Residents’ Association.

Hatfield Town Councillor James Broach spoke against the application.

Members expressed the following concerns during the discussion which ensued:-

•               The proposed development would exacerbate the existing parking issues in the area and did not meet the national or local parking standards.

•               Although very closely located to public transport, including a main line railway station, occupiers of the proposed properties would very likely have at least one vehicle, if not two, per property.

•               There would be considerable impact on the neighbouring roads due to there being little or no parking in the immediate vicinity to the proposed development.

•               Occupiers of the residential properties would be directly affected by the noise emitted from the neighbouring public house. 

•               Concerns were also expressed regarding the side access to the proposed development as this would lead straight on to a narrow public alleyway.

•               The proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site and be detrimental to the amenity value of the area.

•               The proposal would set a precedent and may be detrimental to any future development of other commercial properties.  Reference was made to Salisbury Square

In summary, Members were of the view that due to the insufficient parking provision for the proposal; current parking issues and the close proximity to public transport links the possibility for the site to be a car free development should be further explored.

It was then moved by Councillor S.Markiewicz, seconded by Councillor P.Zukowskyj and

RESOLVED:

(11 voting for, 1 against, 1 abstention)

That notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation for approval the application 6/2016/2339/FULL for the changed use of the property from a restaurant to residential dwellings be deferred for further consideration of the potential for it to be a car free development and to allow the opportunity for negotiation of the Heads of Terms for the proposed S106 agreement in this regard.