Agenda item

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

The report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) detailed the 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).

Members recalled that the application was reported to Development Management Committee on 27 April 2017.  The application was deferred to enable Officers to explore the potential to make the ground floor of the development “car free” as a means of overcoming the shortfall of two on-site car parking spaces.

Officers had investigated the means available to Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) to achieve car free developments.  Case law illustrates that LPA’s were not able to prevent through S106 Obligations, residents from owning cars or applying for Residents/Business Parking Permits for Controlled Parking Zones.  However, LPA’s were able to exclude a property from the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) that listed the properties eligible for a Residents/Business Parking Permits in any Zone.  This method was found, in other Local Authority areas outside of London, to be an effective means of deterring residents from owning and parking a car within the vicinity of a site while the Council retained control over the situation.  This method had proved useful in historic townscapes where on-site parking was not available.

At present No. 23 Park Street was within the list of properties eligible for Parking Permits.  Removing the two ground floor flat units would require an amendment to the TRO.  The effect would be as above to exclude residents from being granted a Residents’ Parking Permit for the Old Hatfield Resident Parking Zone, which would exclude them from parking there during its hours of operation.

The applicant had confirmed their willingness to make a contribution towards the administrative cost of amending the TRO and this could be secured through a S106 Agreement.  Accordingly, the two ground floor flats would not have car parking but this was not considered to cause highway safety issues.

Members noted that the report had been amended in Section 5 (i) Highways and Parking (paragraphs 11.27 to 11.37) and the Planning Obligations Section and was recommended for approval subject to a S106 Agreement and the same conditions as set out in the previous report.

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

Hatfield Town Councillor James Broach spoke against the application.

Members expressed concerns that the proposed change of use to residential property would have a detrimental impact on the vitality and vibrancy of the centre of Old Hatfield and that they wished to see the character of the area remain as it was and not be destroyed.  The view was also expressed that the retail unit, regardless of the nature of the business, should remain.

Further concerns were expressed by Members regarding the long term impact that residential premises on the site would have on neighbouring businesses together with the living conditions of future occupiers of 23 Park Street.

It was moved by Councillor J.Beckerman, seconded by Councillor A.Chesterman that the planning application be approved.  On being put to the vote, this motion was lost (6 voting for and 7 against).

It was moved by Councillor P.Zukowskyj, seconded by Councillor T.Lyons and proposed that the application for 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) be refused due to the potential loss of a retail unit and the impact would have on the vibrancy and vitality of in Hatfield Old Town. 

RESOLVED:

(11 voting for, 4 against)

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 refused for the following reason.

1.    The proposed change of use of the ground floor would result in the loss of a restaurant (A3 use) which would be harmful to the viability and vitality of this part of Old Hatfield.  The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 23 of the National Planning Policy Framework which recognises town centres as the heart of the community.

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 (see Officer’s report which can be viewed on the Council's website or inspected at these offices).

REFUSED DRAWING NUMBERS