Agenda item

RESOLVED: That the application 22/01920/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager with an amendment to Condition 4 reading:

 

“Condition 4:

 

One replacement native semi-mature tree with a recommended girth of between 16-18cm must be planted in the front garden area of the property 14 Oakfields Avenue within 1 year of the date of this decision. Should the tree die within 5 years of it being planted, the tree must be replaced in the following planting season.

 

Reason: In the interest of local amenity.”

 

Audio recording – 2:31:21

 

Thomas Howe presented the report and gave a verbal presentation, which included:

 

·         Omit the report references saved policies and the emerging nature of the Local Plan. My recommendation still stands

·         There is an amendment to Condition 4 of Item 8 relating to the planting of a tree. There is some hoarding erected and some commencement of works related to extent permissions has occurred. It now should read “one replacement native semi-mature tree with a recommended girth of between 16-18cm must be planted in the front garden area of the property 14 Oakfields Avenue within one year of the date of this decision and should the tree die within five years of it being planted, the tree must be replaced in the following planting season”

·         Two applications are being considered at the same address so I will only introduce the site once

·         It is a detached bungalow to the north of Oakfields Avenue and is in a residential area of Knebworth

·         It isn’t listed or in the conservation area.

·         There is a tree that has now been felled

·         This application is looking to join up extant permissions with the emission of certain roof elements. A pitch has been erected to obscure and soften the flat roof.

·         The garage is retained and the rear extension with bifold doors is joining up to the garage.

·         The loss of the copper beech was strongly object to by neighbours and this tree was also considered to contribute to locality given its large size and pleasing crown. It was felled without being a breach of planning as it was not protected by a tree protection order and the site is not in a conservation area. A condition is attached to both applications requiring that a tree be planted in the front garden to replace the felled tree and contribute to the street scene.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·         Councillor Alistair Willoughby

 

In response Thomas Howe advised:

 

·         The Neighbourhood Plan does reference the design of the buildings. It is in traditional nature and is as expected for a dwelling of the size. It is my opinion but I believe it is the nature of the Neighbourhood Plan

 

The Chair invited Peter Calver to speak against the application.

 

Peter Calver thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave presentation which included:

 

·         The two applications should be considered together as they are effectively a single development to this plot.

·         It is surrounding a 1926 bungalow on all sides with flat roofed extensions is entirely out of character and sympathy with the existing building and surrounding properties

·         Oakfields Avenue should be considered as a character neighbourhood whose origins are from the inspired Knebworth Garden Village project from the early 20^th century.

·         An image of this property can be seen in the original prospectus for the Knebworth Garden Village project

·         The bungalow should be described as a building of special architectural interest and should be treated with respect

·         The proposed plans will attach a large double garage to the front which will be detrimental to the street scenery

·         Very little of the original structure would be visible, contrary to North Herts and Parish Council Local Plan policies. These policies state that the layout, design, existing features, and character of the surroundings must be considered. “Concern for the site and surroundings is equally, if not more, important for conversions. Single dwellings can have a disastrous impact on the street scene or building itself. Existing features should be retained as far as possible and development on sites and areas having established character will need careful consideration as to whether they are acceptable at all”.

·         Many surrounding properties have been developed over the years in sympathy to their origins and this should continue

·         The statutory notifications for these applications were not originally displayed at the site by the applicant. It was only after objections were received, it was displayed with only a few days left for objections

·         Planning extended time for objections but the notices were not updated at the site.

·         Another extension was put forward and the planning officer attended the site to ensure the notices were displayed for the full period

·         There was a felling of a significant 80-year-old beech tree on the boundary between 12 and 14.

·         The previous application plans didn’t include this tree and after informing Council planning the plans were amended to include the tree.

·         There was an inspection with a view to imposing a TPO on the significant tree. The tree officer said, “the felling of this tree will be criminal”. He rated the tree definitely meriting a tree preservation order and considered the tree to be in joint ownership between 12 and 14.

·         The applicant in the signed declaration stated that no tree was to be felled and this was reaffirmed by emails.

·         The application for the detached garage under the tree were refused because of the tree

·         With no consultation, the beech tree was felled

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·         Councillor David Levett

 

In response to points of clarification it was advised:

 

·         I am house number 12 which is the bigger house

 

The Chair invited Councillor Lisa Nash to speak against the application as a Member advocate

 

Councillor Nash thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation which included:

 

·         There have been a considerable number of applications which have caused confusion to residents who feel they can’t comment fully. This application should have been a single application

·         This property is currently unoccupied and stands on the road in full view of neighbouring properties and street scene

·         Oakfields Avenue was built in keeping with the garden village design which provides wide main avenues and large gardens, similar to Letchworth, and is protected

·         This application disregards this approach as it is in conflict with the adopted neighbourhood plan.

·         Oakfields Avenue is recognised as a character road in Knebworths neighbourhood plan.

·         One objective of Knebworths neighbourhood plan is to retain the existing architectural character of the garden village which this proposal is contrary to.

·         This proposal is not in keeping with the character of the property nor those surrounding it, which have pitched roofs.

·         The large garage dominates the front of the property and is disproportionate to the size of the property itself and significantly forward of the building line.

·         These features negatively impact the street scene for neighbouring residents

·         This application is also contrary to NHDC policies 28 around house extensions and 57 residential guidelines and standards, by not retaining the shape and existing features of the property.

·         It is contrary to the adopted Local Plan policy D2 due to the adverse effect on the character and appearance of the street scene

·         The road have unique characteristics which should be protected

·         Several neighbours were unhappy about the felling of the beech tree which was due to have a TPO put on it

·         A new and complete planning application should be submitted which shows changes in the property to date and all proposed alterations which is in character to the street scene.

·         I request two conditions are attached. The reinstatement to replace the tree that was felled to maintain the environment, and that due to the disproportionate size of the garage which is significantly forward of the building line, that permitted rights are moved and conversion to residential use should not be allowed

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·         Councillor David Levett

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

 

In response to points of clarification it was advised:

 

·         All the other houses have been altered but have been in keeping with the character and were done before the Neighbourhood Plan which specifically mentions Oakfield Avenue

·         The road is in the Neighbourhood Plan and is a recognised character road

 

The Chair invited Justin Reed to speak in favour of the application.

 

Justin Reed thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave presentation which included:

 

·         The applicant was previously granted prior approval for the single-story rear extension with a depth of 5.32m and granted planning permission for a single-story side and front extension and conversion of a garage into a room.

·         This application seeks to connect the two applications together.

·         There have been points regards to established character, but there are a range of types of houses and there isn’t an established character along the street.

·         The difference between the two approved applications and this one is very slight in differences.

·         The tree was felled in June and the planning officer has recommended an additional condition which requires the client to plant another tree. There was no breach as the tree didn’t have a TPO. The tree doesn’t form part of this application so there shouldn’t be a condition added to it

 

There were no points of clarification from Members

 

The Chair invited Thomas Howe to respond:

 

·         The design is sympathetic

·         The neighbourhood plan does discuss Oakfields Avenue and views down. This is why previous applications were refused for a detached garage at the front.

·         The frontage is still open and you can still see the majority of the design of the dwelling

·         There is a lot of variation along Oakfields Avenue of bungalows and 2-storey dwellings.

·         There were notices put up with correct expiry date to allow for full consultation

·         The applicant can submit two applications, and they are detached from each other.

·         The planting of a tree in the front garden would be a positive impact to number 14 and the wider area.

 

Tom Allington also responded:

 

·         A condition to prevent the garage from being turned into a room was not imposed on the previous application so would be considered unreasonable to impose it now.

·         Usually when we impose a condition like this it is to retain parking, but this site has ample parking in the front.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·         Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·         Councillor Daniel Allen

·         Councillor Nigel Mason

·         Councillor Michael Muir

·         Councillor David Levett

·         Councillor Simon Bloxham

 

Points raised in the debate included:

 

·         The issue seems to be with the character however we have heard from a lot of people that it seems to be in line with the character of the street.

·         The tree shouldn’t have been removed

·         The wording should be that the tree should be planted in the front garden not just on the property. With a tree of that size, will there still be ample parking at the front of the property for two vehicles

·         Was there a pending TPO on the tree that was felled. We should make sure that the new tree doesn’t get cut down too

·         If there is a tree felled for a development we should have a policy as a Council to ensure they plant two trees rather than just one. A tree in the back garden can be planted as well as in the front

·         The previous application was different

·         We don’t have proof that it was felled for planning reasons. I can’t believe that in the next application there is the same wording so there could be two trees planted

 

In response, Tom Allington advised:

 

·         Condition 4 has been updated. The tree should be planted within a year should this application be granted

·         If the tree is to be planted in a similar place to the last tree, the driveway is big enough so there is enough space

·         We are keeping the two applications separate and if both are approved then they would need to plant two trees. The main harm that was caused was the visual impact so planting a tree in the back garden won’t do much to mitigate this

 

Thomas Howe also responded:

 

·         There is wording to ensure the tree is planted in the front garden

·         The previous application proposed two garages, we only allowed one

 

Councillor Alistair Willoughby proposed and Councillor Daniel Allen seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That the application 22/01920/FPH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager with an amendment to Condition 4 reading:

 

“Condition 4:

 

One replacement native semi-mature tree with a recommended girth of between 16-18cm must be planted in the front garden area of the property 14 Oakfields Avenue within 1 year of the date of this decision. Should the tree die within 5 years of it being planted, the tree must be replaced in the following planting season.

 

Reason: In the interest of local amenity.”