Agenda item

Demolition of existing care home building and redevelopment of site to provide 27no. residential units, with associated access, parking, and landscaping works.

Recommendation: That subject to the recommendation of approval and/or no objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement (securing an affordable housing monetary contribution), that the decision be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out below, and any conditions requested by the LLFA:

Claire Westwood, Development Management Team Leader provided the following update:

·        The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) have provided further comments advising that; The applicant has provided an updated Drainage Strategy to account for the local flood risk issues and surface water drainage at this location. Following a review of the submitted documents we have no objection subject to conditions…”

·        The conditions requested relate to a method statement for interim/temporary drainage measures; Additional details of the scheme for disposal of surface water; Details of flood resilient and resistance measures; A Management and Maintenance Scheme; and submission of a Verification Report.  The applicant has queried the wording of suggested condition 5 so this is being discussed with the LLFA, however, the principle of the conditions is agreed.

·        As the LLFA have now confirmed that they have no objection, the recommendation should be updated to read;

Recommendation: That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement (securing an affordable housing monetary contribution), that the decision be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out below, and the conditions requested by the LLFA.

Mr. Meldrum spoke against the application.

Ms. Newbury, representative of the applicant; Herts Living, spoke in support of the application.

In response to concerns that were raised around the impact on the conservation area and the Grade I listed church, the officer advised that the conservation officer was aware of the level of details shown in the plan at the time of the review of the amended drawings. The conservation officer considers that the design and the material amendments are positive but retains some concerns about the scale of the flatted element, and remained of the view that there was a low level of less than substantial harm to the heritage asset.

In terms of the Grade I listed church; the conservation officer didn’t identify harm to the setting of the church.

Members also raised concerns around the amenity space and the public open space near the site.

The officer provided clarification on the figures within the report; the figure of 42 square meters is for a one-bedroom dwelling, the figure for a one-bedroom flat is 21 square meters, and an additional 10 square meters per each additional bedroom. In this case the scheme is a mix of flatted and dwelling houses; the proposed dwellings would each have private amenity gardens which would exceed the above standards in size and provide a good useable area of private amenity space. While the total amenity space provision would fall short of the above standards in terms of size, the balconies would provide a good useable area of private amenity space for the flats.

In response to a question about overdevelopment, the officer pointed out that the proposed development is a 3-storey building and in the opinion of the officers, it is not a high-rise development. Furthermore, the officer advised that the reasons why officers consider the development acceptable are set out in full in paragraph 7.4 of the report.

Increased traffic, generated by the nearby school and insufficient parking have also been raised by members of the Committee, and the officer responded by clarifying that there are two separate issues; one is the highway safety, and the other is the parking provision. HCC’s Highways Authority have reviewed the case and consider it acceptable from the highway safety point of view.

The officer suggested that Members could consider an amendment to bullet point g) under C7 to exclude school drop off and pick up hours.

In terms of the shortfall of the parking spaces; the officer advised that the standards set out, that in areas of good accessibility, some reduction against standards may be appropriate, and confirmed that this is an accessible location. In addition, the shortfall of parking is not significant in the view of the officers.

The officer also provided clarification to another question relating to an earlier question raised by members of the Committee about the impact on the conservation area, confirming that officers have come to the decision that the scheme would preserve and enhance the conservation area, which is different from the conservation officer’s professional observation, who identified a low level of less than substantial harm. If Members were to consider that there was less than substantial harm, the NPPF requires that that should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Further questions were raised around the Grade I listed church, in terms of the design, to which the officer responded that, as a result of earlier concerns about the design, the applicant has made amendments to the design, and introduced different materials and windows to respond to the conservation area’s proximity to the church. Therefore, officers are of the view that the amendments have addressed their initial concerns.

Councillor Harry Davies moved, seconded by Councillor Chris Whately-Smith, that subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement (securing an affordable housing monetary contribution), that the decision be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out below, and the conditions requested by the LLFA. In addition, to include an amendment to section g) under C7; excluding school drop off and pick up hours.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 5 For, 1 Against and 1 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement (securing an affordable housing monetary contribution), that the decision be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out below, and the conditions requested by the LLFA. In addition, to include an amendment to section g) under C7; excluding school drop off and pick up hours.