Agenda item

Mr Starling addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/15/0415/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director referred to the Additional Representations Summary in that Ware Town Council had objected to the application on the grounds of overdevelopment, the massing of the proposed development and the negative effect on neighbouring properties as well as concerns regarding the proposed garage accommodation blocks to the rear of the site.

The Director advised that Officers had detailed an additional landscaping condition in the Additional Representations Summary should Members be supportive of the application.  Members were advised of the site history and the fact that works had been carried out that were not in accordance with a previous planning permission.

The Committee was reminded that although this application was part retrospective in nature, Members should not give this issue significant weight in their decision making and they should determine the application based on the relevant planning issues.

The Director summarised the more significant changes and advised that Officers felt that the overall impact in terms of property separation and light were acceptable in that these were not unusual relationships and the application was judged to be acceptable.

Councillor P Ballam, as the local ward Member, referred to the planning history of the site and stated that since the demolition of an office building there had been a number of refused planning applications for residential development.  She stated that the current application contravened policies ENV1, ENV2 and BH6 and had been submitted, as building works on this site were not in accordance with the plans submitted as part of a previously approved application.

Councillor Ballam commented that the proposed development had a footprint that was 50% larger than the demolished office building.  She referred to the loss of light leading to a dangerous situation for users of the stairs of 105 New Road.  She referred to the orientation and location of windows that provided light to the kitchen of this property and stated that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact.

Councillor Ballam concluded by referring to the parking situation on New Road with double yellow lines on one side and parked cars on the other.  She stated that buses struggled to negotiate this road and she urged the Committee to refuse the application as it contravened policies ENV1, ENV2 and BH6 and failed to respect the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring buildings.

Councillors J Kaye and T Page both expressed similar concerns.

In response to queries from various Members, the Director advised that the proposed parking met with policy and resulted in greater parking flexibility so parking was therefore enhanced by this application.

He also advised that the garage/car port accommodation was proposed at the end of the rear gardens and would have a maximum height of 5.2 metres to the ridge of pitched roofs.  Members should judge whether this impact was acceptable or not.

The Director further advised that, when dealing with previous applications, following a request from the Authority, the applicant had reduced the side wings to 2 storey.  Although an increase in ground level had increased the height of the proposed development a full storey height had not been added back.  Members were advised that the impact would not be more harmful than the previously refused scheme.

Finally, the Director advised that the impact would be to the north in respect of 105 New Road and this impact was already established.  Members were advised that the main difference was that the side wing of the proposed development would now extend further forward.

Overall, the Director concluded that the proposed development would have an impact, but Officers had judged this to be acceptable in policy terms and the relationship between the properties was not uncommon and was similar to that which was in place in many locations in East Herts.

Councillor T Page proposed and Councillor K Warnell seconded, a motion that application 3/15/0415/FUL be refused on the grounds that the proposed development would result in an overbearing impact and loss of light to the occupiers of the adjoining dwellings nos. 99 and 105a New Road and would therefore have an unacceptable impact on their amenity.  The proposal was thereby contrary to policies HSG7 and ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/15/0415/FUL, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.        The proposed development by reason of its siting and height would result in an overbearing impact and loss of light to the occupiers of the adjoining dwellings nos. 99 and 105a New Road and therefore has an unacceptable impact on their amenity.  The proposal is thereby contrary to policies HSG7 and ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Summary of Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2012 (as amended).  East Herts Council has considered, in a positive and proactive manner, whether the planning objections to this proposal could be satisfactorily resolved within the statutory period for determining the application. However, for the reasons set out in this decision notice, the proposal is not considered to achieve an acceptable and sustainable development in accordance with the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.