Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Demolition of partially constructed dwelling and associated garage and erection of 2 dwellings with associated access, parking, gardens and partial rebuilding of existing garden wall.

RESOLVED: That, subject to the deletion of Condition 6 and the renumbering of subsequent conditions, application 17/02025/1be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Councillor David Barnard returned to the room and resumed the Chair.

Demolition of partially constructed dwelling and associated garage and erection of 2 dwellings with associated access, parking, gardens and partial rebuilding of existing garden wall.

 

Prior to commencement of the item Councillor David Barnard (Chairman) declared a declareable interest as he was a board member of North Herts Homes. He advised that he would take no part in the debate or vote on this item and left the room.

 

Councillor Tony Hunter took the Chair

 

The Senior Planning Officer (KP) advised that Conditions 5 and 6 were identical in the report therefor Condition 6 would be omitted and the subsequent conditions be renumbered accordingly.

 

There was one update to the report in that an email had been received from the owner of Japanese Garden in which the summary read:

 

I would like to reiterate my concerns and objection to the proposed scheme for all the valid reasons previously outlined both now and in the past in connection with the Node:

 

•        The damage to the historic character and parkland setting of the Node, the walled garden and Grade II Listed Peach House;

•        The damage to the openness of the Green Belt contrary to National Planning Policy Framework Sections 7, 9, 11 and 12;

•        The impact on the existing orchard and the apparent failure to acknowledge or respect the UK Traditional Orchards habitat Action Plan in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework;

•        The potential impact on existing trees by the proposed location and construction of new buildings which is both unnecessary and avoidable and contrary to the recommendations set out in BS: 5837: 2012;

•        The impact on existing mature trees by the proposed subdivision of land and the insensitive location of proposed new planting within the root protection area of a BS: 5837: 2012 Category A1 mature oak tree. In arboriculture and landscape terms this proposal is farcical. 

 

The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

 

Ms Katharine Gillings thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02025/1.

 

MsGillings informed Members that she owned Japanese Garden and was a professional Landscape Architect.

 

She drew attention to impact on the trees by the new buildings and the road.

 

The report stated that these matters could be dealt with later but this was not the case as excavations, provision of the road, the layby and services would have an impact on the root protection area of the trees.

 

The report referred to root pruning, canopy pruning and other work necessary, however this work was not necessary as the road could be relocated so as not to affect the trees, which were mature trees of high quality.

 

The mature grade one oak tree already had a trench dug through the root protection area and a laurel hedge planted in it, which was contrary to British Standard.

 

This scheme proposed removing the laurel hedge to plant more appropriate hedging, but also proposed digging another trench closer to the trunk of the tree which was even more against British Standard and was ridiculous.

 

It was a shame that the landscape comments in the report were limited and failed to offer any wider aspect comments on the walled garden and there was no evidence that any guidance had been sought regarding arboriculture.

 

MsGillings concluded by stating that al issues of concern regarding refuse, sewage, fire exits, water, the road, trees and all other issues should be agreed by the planning officer prior to granting of permission. Without these issues being resolved it was not possible to assess the full impact of the scheme on the character of the garden and the Green Belt.

 

The Chairman thanked Ms Gillings for her presentation.

 

Ms Sophie Pain, Applicant’s Agent, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 17/02025/1.

 

Ms Pain informed Members that she worked for Beacon Planning and was representing the applicant, Rowan Homes Limited.

 

The Case Officer had provided a very comprehensive report, which identified that the balance of planning consideration was in favour of granting planning permission, subject to the recommended conditions, all of which the applicant accepted.

 

The proposed development sought to remove the partially constructed dwelling known as the Round House and replace it with two dwellings.

 

The construction of the Round House had ceased due to financial reasons and the fact that there had been no interest from prospective buyers, given its layout and appearance.

 

This proposal sought to bring forward two dwellings, which were both deliverable and marketable. Not only would this scheme allow for the impressive garden wall to be restored, but would also enable a means of on-going ownership for the listed glass peach house and the parklands in which it sits.

 

The proposal to remove permitted development rights within this area in order to protect the character and appearance of the area was understood and accepted as a condition.

 

The design and position of the proposed dwellings had been the result of on-going discussions with Officers prior to the submission of the application and during its determination.

 

The locations of these properties towards the boundaries of the site took into account comments raise3d in the previous application regarding retainig the views of the listed building across the parkland from the access road. It was considered that this development successfully achieved that aim.

 

During the course of this application, discussions had taken place regarding alternative locations for the garage belonging to Plot 4. Some feasibility work was undertaken, but alternative locations would have resulted in the turning area being in the centre of the garden for that plot, thereby compromising the amenity for future residents.

 

Advice was sought regarding the landscaping, a tree survey was undertaken and landscape architects had input into the layout of the site.

 

The position of the buildings and the road had been designed to take account of the existing trees and only one tree was proposed for removal and a further six trees required work. The tree management would be required whether or not the development went ahead.

 

Across the site a further 32 trees would be planted as part of the landscaping proposals, together with hedgerows, shrubs and vegetation. There was a suite of conditions that dealt with these aspects as well as landscape management in perpetuity.

 

The proposal was to demolish a partially constructed dwelling of an unusual design, which occupied a prominent position on the site and to replace it with two properties, which in total, reduced the volume of development by 23 percent.

 

Such development was justified as an exception to Green Belt policy, both locally and nationally.

 

The proposals were not materially larger nor did they have a materially greater impact on the purposes of the Green Belt than the existing buildings on the site.

 

The proposal would bring with it benefits, which would enhance the estate and secure long term stewardship for important heritage assets and parkland, which was not possible through the existing permitted scheme.

 

Ms Pain concluded by asking the Committee to support officer recommendations.

 

The Chairman thanked Ms Pain for her presentation.

 

Members sought clarification that there was a proposed condition to protect existing trees.

 

The Senior Planning Officer referred Member to Condition 7.

 

Members commented that the Committee had to consider the application as presented and that the developer would need to pay attention to issues such as British Standards when undertaking the landscaping.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members that the road had been partially constructed under the permission given for the Round House development and acknowledged that it would impinge very slightly on the root protection area of the sycamore tree.

 

Members queried whether some of the planned 32 new trees would be fruit trees and whether an arbicultural survey had been undertaken by the Council.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the applicant had submitted an arbicultural survey and the Council’s landscape design architect considered the landscaping scheme and raised no objection.

 

In respect of the new trees, the Applicant was proposing to reinstate the orchard and the details of that could be included in the landscape management plan, which was the subject of Condition 4.

 

Members acknowledged that this was a development in the Green Belt, however the report did outline the very special circumstances and the proposed buildings were no larger than the original footprint.

 

RESOLVED: That, subject to the deletion of Condition 6 and the renumbering of subsequent conditions, application 17/02025/1be GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Councillor David Barnard returned to the room and resumed the Chair.