Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Erection of 3 storey building to provide 9 x 2 bed flats; conversion and extension of store to 1 bed house and new vehicular access off of Station Approach (as amended by drawings received 12th and 25th October 2017).

RESOLVED: That application 17/01622/1 be REFUSED planning permission, for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposed development, due to the loss of most of the public house garden and the introduction of residential units in such close proximity to the public house, would be prejudicial to the retention and development of this important community facility, which is a designated Asset of Community Value and the only public house in Knebworth. As such, the development would be contrary to paragraphs 28 and 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework and contrary to the spirit of Policy ETC7 of the submitted Local Plan 2011 – 2031.

 

2.    The proposed block of 9 flats, due to its size, would present a cramped appearance in the street scene and this, together with its overall design, would be out of keeping with the character and visual amenities of Station Approach and Park Lane. As such the development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Section 7. Requiring good design, Policy 57 – Residential Guidelines and Standards of North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 with Alterations and Policy D1 – Sustainable Design of the submitted Local Plan 2011 – 2031.

 

3.    The proposed development would fail to provide a sufficient number of parking spaces to serve the new flats, to meet the Council’s current minimum car parking standards and would result in the reduction of the parking space available for the public house. This would result in severe harm upon the parking capacity of the local highway network. The development would, therefore, be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Section 4 - Promoting Sustainable Transport; North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No 2 with Alterations, Policy 55 – Car Parking Standards; and the submitted Local Plan 2011 – 2031, Policy T2 – Parking.

 

4.    Due to the close proximity of the proposed flats and the residential conversion of the store building of the existing public house, the living conditions of the future occupiers would be prejudiced by the general noise and odour associated with the public house. In addition to this, insufficient outdoor amenity space would be provided to meet the needs of the future occupiers. The development would, therefore, be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 17; North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No.2 with Alterations, Policy 57 – Residential Guidelines and Standards; and submitted Local Plan 2011 -2031, Policy D3 – Protecting Living Conditions.

 

5.    The submitted planning application has not been accompanied by a valid legal undertaking (in the form of a Section 106 Obligation) securing the provision of planning obligations as set out in the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted November 2006) and the Planning obligation guidance – toolkit for Hertfordshire: Hertfordshire County Council’s requirements January 2008. The secure delivery of these obligations is required to mitigate the impact of the development on the identified services in accordance with the adopted Planning Obligations SPD, Policy 51 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 - with Alterations (Saved Polices 2007) or Proposed Local Plan Policy HS2 of the Council's Proposed Submission Local Plan (2011-2031). Without this mechanism to secure these provisions the development scheme cannot be considered as sustainable form of development contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Erection of 3 storey building to provide 9 x 2 bed flats; conversion and extension of store to 1 bed house and new vehicular access off of Station Approach (as amended by drawings received 12th and 25th October 2017).

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of planning application 17/01622/1.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that comments had been received from the Lead Local Flood Authority, who had recommended 2 additional conditions relating to requiring more details of the SUDS feature before development commenced, and to ensure the mitigation measures were carried out.

 

The Senior Planning Officer stated that comments had also been received from NHDC Environmental Health, who had recommended 3 conditions and 1 informative summarised as follows:

 

·      Requiring a scheme of noise mitigation measures for approval;

·      No plant to be installed at the flats until a noise assessment had been approved; and

·      Prior to kitchen extraction system serving the Pub being used, the odour abatement measures detailed in the submitted report shall be fully implemented and maintained in perpetuity.

 

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Section 106 Agreement had been signed by the applicant, and was with the Hertfordshire County Council solicitor for sealing, and then back to NHDC for sealing and completion.

 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that she would like to add the further condition regarding a bat survey, as follows:

 

“Condition for bat survey - Prior to the commencement of the development, hereby approved, dusk emergence / dawn re-entry surveys shall be undertaken during May – August inclusive (possibly September if the weather remains warm) to determine with confidence whether bats are roosting and, should this be the case, an outline bat mitigation strategy based on the results shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in full. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.”

 

The Senior Planning Officer also wished to amend the reason to proposed Condition 18, relating to the restriction of the flat above the pub, to replace the words “the viability of” with the words “in the interest of”.

 

The Senior Planning Officer referred to an amendment to Paragraph 4.3.24 of report, relating to parking, in order to omit the word ‘not’ as there were marked bays, albeit faded, and add the word ‘overall’ at the end of the next sentence so that it read:

 

“The existing car park that serves The Station PH does have marked bays. The proposed low level planting strip to the front of the site would lead to a loss of 1 or 2 spaces overall.”

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented a series of slides, which comprised photographs of the application site and drawings.

 

Ms Lisa Nash (Save our Station Pub Campaign) and Parish Councillor Roger Willcocks (Knebworth Parish Council) addressed the Committee in objection to application 17/01622/1.

 

Ms Nash advised that the Station Pub was the only pub in Knebworth, a village of 5,000 inhabitants, set to grow considerably.  Its loss would have a serious impact on social sustainability, conflicting with national and local planning policy.  The proposal would result in the loss of the pub, as it was not possible for it to survive in the manner shown on the plans.  The community of Knebworth would suffer irrevocably.

 

Ms Nash explained that the whole site was listed as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) by NHDC and this should be fully respected and considered before making any decision.  It appeared that the report only considered the pub as an ACV, but the gardens and outbuildings also had ACV status.  The gardens and outbuildings should not be disassociated from their current use and considered in isolation.

 

Ms Nash stated that the impact of the sub-division of the site on the pub as an ACV was therefore a material planning consideration, and to ignore that fact would be highly inappropriate, if not unlawful.

 

Ms Nash commented that, according to the report, CAMRA had stated that any development on the site would render the pub operation unworkable.  It was contrary to policy for many reasons, including the fact that there would be insufficient space for delivery vehicles to service the pub; and refuse, recycling and empty barrel storage space had been omitted, necessitating street side storage, likely to lead to residents’ complaints.  No consideration had been given to the storage of compressed gases and other hazardous substances necessary for a pub cellar operation.

 

Ms Nash stated that the fact that the developer had made no attempt to run the pub as a business, and had kept it closed, suggested that there had never been an intention to re-open it.  Dividing the pub use from its associated gardens and outbuildings would harm any chance that it could be retained for the local community.  On the contrary, the land and outbuildings could be used to support the viability of the pub.

 

Ms Nash was of the view that pubs were an important part of the social infrastructure in any community, with the public health concerns of social isolation high on the Government’s agenda.  Research had recognised that pubs paid a pivotal role in social cohesion and the development of friendships.  The application was contrary to planning policy, as it failed to protect the needs of the local community.

 

Ms Nash commented that the application presented a gross under-provision of car parking.  The pub car park had been reduced by half, with no consideration for disabled drivers.  It ignored Knebworth’s inherent and worsening parking issues, as the norm was that minimum parking provision would be met in all places.

 

Ms Nash advised that the garden supported leisure and tourism, with the petanque court regularly used by Knebworth Twinning Association.  The gardens, an essential asset to the pub, would drive increased profitability when operated properly.  They also created a significant visual impact which set the pub, noted as building of special interest, apart from newer developments.  Furthermore, the loss of a tree to build the flats was not planning policy.

 

Ms Nash referred to similar instances of where decisions to refuse similar applications were upheld on appeal.  She asked the Committee to support the retention of the pub and gardens in Knebworth for the local community and in the interests of social sustainability.

 

Parish Councillor Willcocks stated that there was no need to demonstrate that there was a community need, as the pub was viable.  This had been recognised by NHDC who had added it to the ACV Register.  The needs of the community had not been met by any other pubs in the area, and so any attempts to reduce the viability of this pub’s operation should be rejected.

 

Parish Councillor Willcocks advised that the had Planning Officer indicated that ACV status was a material planning consideration, which must be taken into account.  In addition, moving the pub car park would have an adverse effect on those with mobility issues.  The application should be rejected as harming the character of the area and because of its detrimental impact on local heritage.

 

After a period of questions and answers, the Chairman thanked Ms Nash and Parish Councillor Willcocks for their presentations.

 

Councillor Steve Hemingway (Member Advocate) addressed the Committee in respect of application 17/01622/1.

 

Councillor Hemingway advised that there was a dire parking situation in Knebworth. Near the centre of the village, there had been the following applications/developments:

 

•     Constance Place, care home, 27 flats, 13 spaces;

•     Lowes Yard, care home, 48 flats, 23 spaces;

•     Sand Yard application, 2 flats, two shops, 2 spaces;

•     Loss of the Barclays bank with its dedicated car park;

•     Controlled Parking Zone in Pondcroft Road, Milestone Road, which represented a loss of hundreds of car parking spaces during the day;

•     Hamilton Billiards, application, 10 flats, below minimum parking standards on grounds that it was close to the centre of the village;

•     Eight flats at 1 Stevenage Road, which was originally a single dwelling. Reduced parking allocation;

•     Redevelopment of Library site, large new GP surgery, with no provision of parking spaces for staff or patients;

•     new development in Kerr Close, reduced parking allocation;

•     Conversion of Station House (office block) to 10 flats, no additional parking spaces to be provided beyond the provision currently made for employees;

•     Wordsworth Court (built on the former car park of the pub, with the loss of 25 parking spaces); and

•     Ferguson House, six flats built on the site of a single dwelling (Carneal).

 

Councillor Hemingway commented that local residents could not understand why the Council continued to grant these applications below the minimum parking standards.

In respect of the viability of the public house, Councillor Hemingway proposed that some conditions be added to any possible grant of permission.  The first was that no new residential units were sold until the pub was back up and running.  This would protect the scenario where the pub remained empty for a number of years and the developer eventually applied for change of use.  The second was a restrictive covenant be added to the pub’s title documents which prevented any change of use, with the covenant being made in favour of Knebworth parish Council or another local community group.  This gave an incentive to retain the pub as an operating business, and even if it proved unviable, the planning gain would be to the community rather than the developer.

Although he would prefer that the application be refused, Councillor Hemingway felt that, if granted, the above conditions would help to ensure that some form of pub use was retained on the site.

The Chairman thanked Councilor Hemingway for his presentation.

Shanna Jackson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of application 17/01622/1.

 

Ms Jackson considered that the officer report provided a well balanced analysis of the application.  It was recognised that the site was an ACV, although the pub had been closed since February 2017, due to it being deemed unviable to run by the brewery

 

Ms Jackson stated that the pub was requiring some much-needed renovation works to enable it to re-open.  The proposed residential development would provide the finance to bring about the pub’s re-opening.  Without this investment, it was likely that the pub would remain closed.

 

Ms Jackson explained that part of the development would be positioned on part of the pub garden area.  However, 154 Square Metres would remain to serve the pub, and there was no evidence to suggest that this would affect the viability of the pub use.  The residents of the nearby development used the pub as a shortcut to reach the station and village shops.  This would be retained.

 

Ms Jackson noted that there had been no objections to the scheme from statutory consultees, including Highways, Environmental Health, various agencies and the Council’s Urban Design Team.  The applicant had worked with officers to ensure the best outcome for the site.  It was a sustainable development within a sustainable location, which would help facilitate the refurbishment of the Station pub, to the benefit of the local community.  She respectfully suggested that the Committee followed the Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission.

 

After a period of questions and answers, the Chairman thanked Ms Jackson for her presentation.

 

In respect of issues raised during the presentations, the Senior Planning Officer commented as follows:

 

·      Conditions suggested by Councillor Hemingway – the proposed condition regarding no new units being sold until the pub was up and running would be difficult to impose and would probably be seen as unreasonable; the second proposed condition, relating to a covenant to prevent a change of use, was a civil and not a planning matter;

·      Parking standards – 16 spaces were provided, a shortfall from the 22 required by the standards.  However, reductions could be considered in certain situations, such as town centre locations and other accessible locations with availability to a range of services, such as existed in Knebworth; and

·      Paragraph 32 of the NPPF – this stated that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impact of the development was severe.  This was subjective, but a recent appeal decision regarding the former Black Squirrel site in Letchworth had allowed 18 flats to be constructed with no associated car parking spaces.

 

In respect of the possibility that the Section 106 Obligation could include wording to ensure that the premises be retained as a pub, the Planning Lawyer commented that the Obligation had been signed by the applicant and was currently with Hertfordshire County Council.  There was still room for negotiation and the Council could seek to introduce a trigger point of, say, 50% of the dwellings having to be occupied before refurbishment works commenced on the retained pub.  This would necessitate deferral of the application to enable such negotiations to take place.

 

The Committee debated the applications, and the following points were raised:

 

·      This would be shoehorning an inappropriately large development into a reasonable piece of amenity space; units would be built right up to the path in what was purported to be a quieter corner of Knebworth;

·      This was gross overdevelopment and urbanisation of the site, out of character with the area, and the effect on the pub would be detrimental;

·      There was inadequate parking provision associated with the site;

·      An unwillingness to vote in favour of the application until assurances could be given that the pub would definitely be retained;

·      The application was contrary to NPPF Paragraph 28, which stated that Local Planning Authorities should be supporting the sustainable growth and expansion of businesses and enterprise in the rural area.  It further urged Local Planning Authorities to promote the retention of local services and community facilities in villages; and

·      The application was also contrary to NPPF Paragraph 70, which stated that Local Planning Authorities should ensure that established shops, facilities and services were able to develop and modernise in ways which were sustainable and retained for the benefit of the community (public houses were mentioned as an example).

 

The Planning and Conservation Manager commented that, notwithstanding the status of the pub, a number of Members had concerns about the housing scheme.  He cautioned Members against deferring the application to explore issues regarding the Section 106 Obligation, only for the application to be reported back with the possibility of it being refused permission on design grounds.

 

Members acknowledged the comments of the Planning and Conservation Manager, and it was proposed and seconded that the application be refused planning permission, on the grounds of the excessive size of the housing development; its impact on the visual amenity of the area and on the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed flats and neighbouring residents; out of keeping with the area; its impact on the viability of the pub as a community asset; the lack of adequate parking; contrary to Paragraphs 28 and 70 of the NPPF and Policy ETC7 of the North Hertfordshire Submission Local Plan.  Members also accepted the suggestion that the lack of a completed Section 106 Obligation should also form part of the Committee’s grounds for refusal.

 

Upon the motion being put to the vote, it was

 

RESOLVED: That application 17/01622/1 be REFUSED planning permission, for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposed development, due to the loss of most of the public house garden and the introduction of residential units in such close proximity to the public house, would be prejudicial to the retention and development of this important community facility, which is a designated Asset of Community Value and the only public house in Knebworth. As such, the development would be contrary to paragraphs 28 and 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework and contrary to the spirit of Policy ETC7 of the submitted Local Plan 2011 – 2031.

 

2.    The proposed block of 9 flats, due to its size, would present a cramped appearance in the street scene and this, together with its overall design, would be out of keeping with the character and visual amenities of Station Approach and Park Lane. As such the development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Section 7. Requiring good design, Policy 57 – Residential Guidelines and Standards of North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 with Alterations and Policy D1 – Sustainable Design of the submitted Local Plan 2011 – 2031.

 

3.    The proposed development would fail to provide a sufficient number of parking spaces to serve the new flats, to meet the Council’s current minimum car parking standards and would result in the reduction of the parking space available for the public house. This would result in severe harm upon the parking capacity of the local highway network. The development would, therefore, be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Section 4 - Promoting Sustainable Transport; North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No 2 with Alterations, Policy 55 – Car Parking Standards; and the submitted Local Plan 2011 – 2031, Policy T2 – Parking.

 

4.    Due to the close proximity of the proposed flats and the residential conversion of the store building of the existing public house, the living conditions of the future occupiers would be prejudiced by the general noise and odour associated with the public house. In addition to this, insufficient outdoor amenity space would be provided to meet the needs of the future occupiers. The development would, therefore, be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 17; North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No.2 with Alterations, Policy 57 – Residential Guidelines and Standards; and submitted Local Plan 2011 -2031, Policy D3 – Protecting Living Conditions.

 

5.    The submitted planning application has not been accompanied by a valid legal undertaking (in the form of a Section 106 Obligation) securing the provision of planning obligations as set out in the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted November 2006) and the Planning obligation guidance – toolkit for Hertfordshire: Hertfordshire County Council’s requirements January 2008. The secure delivery of these obligations is required to mitigate the impact of the development on the identified services in accordance with the adopted Planning Obligations SPD, Policy 51 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 - with Alterations (Saved Polices 2007) or Proposed Local Plan Policy HS2 of the Council's Proposed Submission Local Plan (2011-2031). Without this mechanism to secure these provisions the development scheme cannot be considered as sustainable form of development contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).