Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of one detached 4-bed dwelling including creation of vehicular access off Gosmore Road.

RESOLVED: That application 20/02573/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following additional condition:

 

“Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, full details of additional soft landscaping/planting within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such planting shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details within the first planting season following the first occupation of the development. The additional trees and planting shall thereafter be retained for five years following planting and should any trees die or are damaged within the first five years they shall be replaced by trees of a similar size and species and thereafter retained for the remainder of the five year period.

 

Reason: To achieve a high quality soft landscaping scheme associated with this development in the interests of amenity and biodiversity.”

Audio Recording – 2 hours 57 minutes.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of Application 20/02573/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The Chair invited Mr Peter Hope to address the Committee.

 

Mr Peter Hope thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                He was opposed to the development;

·                The proposal would result in development out of keeping with the general character of the area;

·                The development was in-fill with significant visual impact on the surrounding area impairing its character and quality;

·                The proposed plot was smaller than that of surrounding residences and a development of this size on a small plot would impact neighbouring buildings;

·                Plans submitted indicated the north and south walls were 85 and 90 centimetres respectively from the border fences;

·                The site was elevated and had rear windows that would overlook neighbouring gardens resulting in loss of light and invasion of privacy;

·                The front aspect of the building was away from the main building line of the road and therefore out of keeping with the area;

·                Vehicles emerging from the site would exit on to a blind section of Gosmore Road at increased risk and as such the development contravened NPPF highways requirements.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Simon Harwood to address the Committee.

 

Councillor Simon Harwood thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                The development would substantially alter the prevailing character of the area;

·                The dwelling would grossly in-fill the land between existing properties;

·                The proposal would impact both the built and environmental character of the area;

·                Section 5.1.1 of the report states that the site was not development in the Green Belt which was not accurate where the access drive to the property sits on green belt land;

·                Access to the property off Gosmore Road was problematic for the reasons outlined above;

·                The front aspect of the property would form a new building line significant in front of existing properties;

·                The proposed dwelling would be too close to neighbouring dwellings;

·                The garden was not redundant before recent occupation;

·                The application should be rejected on the basis that the development sets a precedent for infill of garden land between properties changing the character of the local area.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

 

In response to questions Councillor Simon Harwood advised that he lived around 1km from the proposed development and was not adversely affected by the proposals.

 

The Chair invited Mr Jerry Fiore to address the Committee.

 

Mr Jerry Fiore thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                The report of the Development and Conservation Manager was comprehensive and he endorsed its contents and recommendation;

·                The proposal was a high quality design in keeping with the surrounding area and acceptable on planning grounds;

·                The architect was keen to incorporate design elements that made the development sympathetic to the area including matching materials, a similar scale of property, with a reduced ridge height and set at an acute angle to avoid overlooking;

·                Shadow diagrams were not called for by the Planning department and the report did not consider loss of light to be an issue;

·                There were no trees removed as part of this proposal; mature trees had been removed from neighbouring properties on professional advice;

·                If it was necessary a landscaping scheme including planting of screening or hedges could be considered;

·                The development was to be a family home built to a high standard and incorporating energy saving measures.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager addressed points raised by the speakers including:

 

·                The plans clearly demonstrated that the development site was not situated in the green belt; a very small portion of the access drive crossed the boundary in to green belt land; none of the built portion would be in the green belt;

·                The site was situated at a transition point on a corner between two building lines and therefore its deviation was not relevant;

·                The proposal was well designed for a tighter plot of land compared to the large plots in the surrounding residences;

·                Its impact would not constitute gross infill in particular as the site was situated in a built residential area in Hitchin.

 

The following Members asked questions and took part in the debate:

 

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

·                Councillor Mike Hughson

·                Councillor Carol Stanier

 

Issues raised during the debate included:

 

·                Material planning considerations;

·                Boundary distances:

·                Screening and landscaping.

 

In response to questions the Development and Conservation Manager advised:

 

·                The issues of boundary distance and the 30 meter rule were policy guidance rather than hard legal limits and in view of the whole scheme the distances proposed were acceptable;

·                A condition requiring a landscaping scheme to be submitted for approval by the planning authority could be added.

 

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed, Councillor Mike Hughson seconded and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 20/02573/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following additional condition:

 

“Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, full details of additional soft landscaping/planting within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such planting shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details within the first planting season following the first occupation of the development. The additional trees and planting shall thereafter be retained for five years following planting and should any trees die or are damaged within the first five years they shall be replaced by trees of a similar size and species and thereafter retained for the remainder of the five year period.

 

Reason: To achieve a high quality soft landscaping scheme associated with this development in the interests of amenity and biodiversity.”