Agenda item

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

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) setting out the erection of eight flats and creation of car parking and amenity space following demolition of existing dwellinghouse.

The application site comprised a bungalow with an attached garage and front and rear gardens on the north east corner of Roe Green Close and College Lane in South Hatfield.  The site was on the edge of the buffer zone to Chalk Mining Area Number 10 (Roe Green Dell).

Roe Green Close was a residential loop road with a narrow carriageway.  The houses were predominantly two storey and set back from the road behind grass frontages with consistent spacing between them.  There were open grassed amenity areas in the Close.  The bungalow on the application site projected further forward than the neighbouring houses on the north side of Roe Green Close but was not unduly prominent in the street-scene.  College Lane was also a residential road with a green spacious environment.  The far side of College Lane was a wooded amenity area. 

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because Councillor Broach had called-in the application:

“I would like to call this application in to DMC – unless officers are minded to refuse, in which case I am happy for this to be done under delegated powers, as I believe this is a textbook case of overdevelopment. My call in is for the following reasons:

•This proposed change from a family bungalow to a set of flats would be completely out of keeping with the neighbouring area of family homes, and would give a significant impression of overlooking to the immediate neighbours at No. 3. To steal a quote from the officers report on the previously rejected application - “the proposal would result in an excessively bulky and prominent building, which would appear over-dominant in the streetscape. It would result in a loss of spacing to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area”.

•I cannot see a designated storage area for bicycles on the plans, which I would expect to see as standard on an application such as this.

•Whilst I welcome the addition of a turning area by the car parking spaces at the rear of the property, I do not believe what is proposed will work in practice. Will a car reversing out of spaces 9-11 actually be able to turn if spaces 5-8 are occupied? If not, this leaves a lengthy and potentially dangerous reversing manoeuvre of the users of spaces 9-11.

•For the numbers of potential occupants of this proposal, the garden amenity space seems absolutely tiny. I would therefore argue that insufficient outdoor amenity space has been afforded to the potential occupants of this proposal.

•Turning to indoor amenity space, I note that the applicant has failed to provide measurements on the plans for the bedrooms. Based on the information on the drawings, I would argue that Bedroom 2 of Unit Two, Unit 5 and Unit 6 are all very small, and would query whether these meet the requirements for a bedroom? I also note that none of the bathrooms have any windows, and would query whether this constitutes a good level of design? 

This is a completely inappropriate development, and I would urge that it be refused as the previous application was.”

Mr D.Cummings, objector, on behalf of the neighbouring properties, stated that the proposed development would be out of keeping and overbearing.  There would significant change of use which was inappropriate for the area.

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Councillor James Broach speaking as the Ward Member reiterated the reasons he had called in the application.

Members of the Committee stated the following concerns.

·         Inappropriate development

·         Overbearing development due to the proposed size and bulk

·         Out of keeping

·         Loss of amenity space

·         Increased noise and disturbance and area density

It was then proposed by Councillor T.Lyons, seconded by Councillor S.Markiewicz and

RESOLVED:

(unanimous)

That planning permission notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation for approval be refused for the following reasons.

(1)       By virtue of its design, scale, bulk, massing and positioning the proposal would result in an excessively bulky and prominent building, which would appear over-dominant in the streetscape.  It would result in a loss of spacing to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area.  Consequently, the proposed design would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the local area, contrary to the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Policy D2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005 and the Supplementary Design Guidance 2005.

(2)       The proposed development would result in overdevelopment of the site and the cramped layout and inadequate size of amenity space and would fail to create a satisfactory high level of living conditions and fail to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Policies H2, H6 and D1 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005 and the Supplementary Design Guidance 2005.

(3)       The applicant has not satisfied the sustainability aims of the Local Plan and to secure the proper planning of the area by failing to ensure that the development proposal would provide a sustainable form of development in mitigating the impact on local infrastructure and services which directly relate to the proposal and which is necessary for the grant of planning permission.  The applicant has failed to provide a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).  The Local Planning Authority considers that it would be inappropriate to secure the required financial and non-financial contributions by any method other than a legal agreement and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy IM2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005.