Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Mrs Malyon and Mrs Ball addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Brush spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to the applicant or successor in title entering into a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of application 3/13/1721/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor P Ballam, as the local ward Member, expressed concerns that the existing maisonettes that were due to be demolished were attractive brick built properties that were in keeping with the street scene.  She believed the application was of a modern design with flat roofs that were completely out of keeping with the street scene.  Councillor Ballam also expressed concerns relating to pedestrian safety, construction traffic, car parking, access for emergency vehicles and the visual impact of the application and its overall impact on residents’ amenity.  She urged the Committee to reject what she considered to be a totally unsuitable development.

Councillor G Williamson echoed these concerns and stated that he could not support this application.

Councillor D Andrews expressed his surprise to learn that the applicant proposed the destruction of 12 well maintained family homes.  He questioned the density of the proposed development and the impact on the existing street scene.  He also expressed concerns in respect of overlooking for existing residents.

Councillor S Bull stated he would be voting against this application.  He highlighted the many planning issues referred to in a list of bullet points covering objections to the application in the Officer’s report.  He also expressed concerns relating to the loss of community spirit should the application be approved.

The Director referred Members to a significant amount of additional information that Officers had summarised in the additional representations schedule.  Members were reminded that disruption during construction was a temporary event and the Committee should not attach significant weight to this issue as it was the finished article that should be considered.

The Director referred to the appearance, scale and density of the proposed development.  He stressed that Members must articulate what in particular was unacceptable in respect of this application.  Members were reminded that change itself was not a sufficient basis for refusing an application.

Members were advised that the increased space that would be created by the wider access road to the south of the site had to be balanced against the increased scale of the proposed development.  Officers were satisfied that the application was acceptable in planning terms and there was a similar 3 storey block of development to the north of the site.

The Director stated that there would be a less conventional flat roof at a higher level of 3 storeys than the existing 2 storey dwellings.  Members were advised that the proposed parking provision was higher than the level required by the Authority for a development of this scale. 

The Director concluded that the Authority was in the position of needing to secure additional affordable housing provision.  In response to a query from the Chairman, the Director confirmed that, following advice from the Council’s Solicitor, Officers had attached a condition restricting the use of the units to affordable housing.

Councillor M Newman referred to the existing dwellings and sought clarification as to whether planning policies attached any weight to the issue of the displacement of existing residents.  He also queried whether the application met any of the tests covered by policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007, in particular, whether the structure and layout of the proposed development was compatible with the massing and height of neighbouring dwellings.

The Director confirmed that policy ENV1 was the closest policy in terms of community provision in East Herts.  Members were advised that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) focussed more on facilities to support development, such as schools, transport and other supporting infrastructure rather than the retention of existing communities.

Councillor G Jones proposed and Councillor G Williamson seconded, a motion that application 3/13/1721/FP be refused on the grounds that the proposed development would be out of keeping with and would have a harmful impact on the existing character of the area and the proposal failed to take the opportunity of improving the character and quality of the area.  The application was therefore contrary to policies ENV1 and HSG7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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 3/13/1721/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed development, by reason of the scale, form, design and appearance of frontage Blocks A and B, would be out of keeping with and have a harmful impact on the existing character of the area.  As a result, the proposal fails to take the opportunity available for improving the character and quality of the area.  It is thereby contrary to policies ENV1 and HSG7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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. 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.