Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Conversion of Node Court to 8 no. dwellings. Conversion of Midden building to residential and the erection of 6 no. terraced dwelling-houses as development to facilitate the restoration of Node Court together with associated car parking, landscaping, boundary treatment and ancillary works (Amended Plans received 30 August 2024).

RESOLVED: That Application 23/00407/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the resolution of negotiation of a S106 or legal agreement which secures the heritage benefits, which will be negotiated post-resolution; and Conditions and Informative as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with added condition as may be required in association with the S106 or legal agreement, and the following additional Condition 25, as follows:

 

‘Condition 25:

 

Prior to Occupation, vehicle to vehicle visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 25 metres to the both directions shall be provided and permanently maintained. Within which, there shall be no obstruction to visibility between 600 mm and 2.0 metres above the carriageway level. These measurements shall be taken from the intersection of the centre line of the permitted access with the edge of the carriageway of the highway respectively into the application site and from the intersection point along the edge of the carriageway.

 

Reason: To ensure construction of a satisfactory development and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).’

Audio recording – 31 minutes 6 seconds

 

The Chair advised Members that the reports for Applications 23/00407/FP and 23/00408/LBC would be presented together.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members that a representation had been received from a neighbour of the site and advised that:

 

·             Their main concern with the proposed development was the state of Drivers End Lane.

·             They described the road as difficult to navigate with few passing places, having no pathway for pedestrians and being frequently flooded.

·             They were looking forward to seeing Node Court restored, but before this could happen, the vehicle site access would have to be improved. 

 

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the reports in respect of Applications 23/00407/FP and 23/00408/LBC supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·             Councillor Jon Clayden

·             Councillor Louise Peace

·             Councillor Tom Tyson

·             Councillor Ruth Brown

·             Councillor Val Bryant

·             Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·             Councillor Ian Mantle

 

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·             No alternative proposals had been put forward for the use of the site.

·             The terraced houses would cause harm to the listed building in its setting, therefore they were undersized and uncompliant with policy to limit the damage.  

·             Highways had not provided any conditions for the application.

·             Where the site was previously used for commercial purposes, traffic was concentrated at certain times, whereas traffic would be spread throughout the day if the site was to be used residentially as proposed.

·             S106 contributions from the developer would be waived in exchange for the district gaining a listed building.

·             The width of Drivers End Lane was unknown.

·             There was no information on the volume or type of construction vehicles that would be deployed during the construction phase of the development.

·             Drivers End Lane had several residencies along it.

·             Whether the apartments would be sold on a freehold or leasehold basis would not be for the Council to decide as it was outside their remit.

 

In response to questions, the Principle Planning Officer advised that:

 

·             Highways had not wished to attend the meeting and had not provided conditions for the application, however, they recommended that the visibility splay condition in the addendum should be implemented.

·             If the Council decided to enforce a condition on the application for the developer to provide a construction traffic management plan, this would need approval from Highways. However, they had objected to the application in principle and would be unlikely to agree this which could cause problems for the developer going forward.

·             The objection from Highways was based on the visibility splays and the site location which they deemed to be unsustainable as it was car dependent.

·             An objection to construction traffic resulting from the application had not been raised by Highways, but unless they recommended a condition on traffic management, they would be unlikely to support it. 

·             Highways agreed that vehicle movement on Driver End Lane would be greater if the site was used commercially rather than residentially as proposed.   

 

Councillor Martin Prescott proposed to grant permission, with the amended conditions and the additional Condition 25 as set out in the supplementary document. This was seconded by Councillor Amy Allen.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·             Councillor Mick Debenham

·             Councillor Amy Allen

·             Councillor Jon Clayden

·             Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·             Councillor Louise Peace

·             Councillor Val Bryant

·             Councillor Ruth Brown

·             Councillor Bryony May

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

 

The following points were raised as part of the debate:

 

·             Permission should be granted as Node Court was an eyesore and it would great to see it restored to its former state. 

·             Residents would like to see the building restored, but their biggest concern was regarding traffic.

·             It was a shame that the applicant was not in attendance to answer questions on the application.

·             They were being asked to suspend several important conditions when granting permission such as living space standards, greenbelt impact, sustainability, S106 contributions and an allocation of affordable housing. 

·             Independent assessment and viability of the site had been undertaken.

·             Previous applications for the site had been withdrawn. 

·             Certain pieces of information were unavailable to help the Committee to make an informed decision on the application.

·             The number of units were not an issue as it was an enabling development and more units should be added in order to receive S106 contributions and affordable housing allocation from the site.

·             Multiple applications for the site had been received since 2015 and withdrawn. the lack of a construction traffic management plan was an issue and so was affordable housing and s106 contributions.

·             It was an enabling development that would bring the listed asset back into use and resolve issues such as anti-social behaviour and fly-tipping at that location but it also ignored several planning policy considerations.

·             Discussions on the viability of the application had been robust enough for it to be presented at the Committee.

·             The Planning Control Committee considered each application based on their individual merits and a decision on this application would not set a precedent for decisions on future applications.

·             An amendment to defer the application could take place until they received more information on the application.

·             The application possessed architectural merit and more dwellings could be considered, however, this would increase the harm to the heritage asset and traffic on the nearby roads.

·             Single track roads such as Drivers End Lane had advantages to them like naturally lower speeds due to their layout.

·             On balance, if the Committee wanted to gain a heritage asset and provide additional dwellings that would not cause harm to it, they should waive the

 

In response to points raised in the debate, the Principle Planning Officer advised that:

 

·             It was speculated that previous applications for the site had been withdrawn as evidence from the developer to prove that the bare minimum amount of harm and land usage to restore the heritage asset had not been robust enough.

·             The removal of two units from the application had been negotiated to ensure that the minimum possible harm to the heritage asset was achieved.

 

In response to points raised in the debate, the Chair clarified that if the application was deferred, it might be appealed or the same application that was before them tonight could come back to a future Committee due to the heritage concerns raised by officers during the investigation process. Therefore, an amendment to defer the application was not recommended and they should vote to grant or reject planning permission for the application. 

 

Having been proposed and seconded, the motion to approve the application was put to a vote, following which the vote was tied.

 

Therefore, the Chair was required to cast the deciding vote and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That Application 23/00407/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the resolution of negotiation of a S106 or legal agreement which secures the heritage benefits, which will be negotiated post-resolution; and Conditions and Informative as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with added condition as may be required in association with the S106 or legal agreement, and the following additional Condition 25, as follows:

 

‘Condition 25:

 

Prior to Occupation, vehicle to vehicle visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 25 metres to the both directions shall be provided and permanently maintained. Within which, there shall be no obstruction to visibility between 600 mm and 2.0 metres above the carriageway level. These measurements shall be taken from the intersection of the centre line of the permitted access with the edge of the carriageway of the highway respectively into the application site and from the intersection point along the edge of the carriageway.

 

Reason: To ensure construction of a satisfactory development and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).’