Skip to main content

Agenda item

26/00021/FP 1 AND 3 PRIORY LANE, LITTLE WYMONDLEY, HITCHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG4 7HE

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Erection of one pair of semi-detached dwellings and one detached dwelling to include cycle stores, hard and soft landscaping and parking following demolition of the existing commercial buildings. Alterations to existing vehicular access (as amended by plans rec'd 9 March 2026).

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 26/00021/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons, with delegated authority granted to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the reasons for refusal:

 

A)        The proposed dwellings would result in unacceptable adverse overlooking and loss of privacy to the immediate neighbour to the west failing to comply with the provisions of Policy D3 of the Local Plan and would result in a form of development failing to respond positively to the site’s local context, failing to comply with the provisions of Policy D1 of the Local Plan and Policy DP3.1 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

B)        The loss of the commercial / business premises is objected to on the basis that they are occupied by business uses and due to the grant of planning permission for 300 homes in the village, it is anticipated that there will be the demand for local business or shop uses in the village in the long term.  As a result, the retention of these commercial uses are protected by the provisions of Policy ETC2 of the Local Plan.

 

C)        Loss of local employment opportunities.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 04 hours 10 minutes 39 seconds

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 26/00021/FP and advised that:

 

·             A late neighbour representation had been received, which raised matters relating to loss of privacy, subsidence and the unresolved objection from the Environment Agency.

·             New conditions were recommended to retain and protect the existing trees, and to install a 2.5m high fence along the boundary with no.32 Priory View to retain privacy and mitigate overlooking from the proposed dwellings, which would be implemented by the Development and Conservation Manager under the delegation of authority that would be granted to them if permission was granted.

 

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 26/00021/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The Chair invited the Public Objector, Wymondley Parish Councillor Paul Harding to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Harding thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and advised that:

 

·             Under Section 38 of the 2004 Planning Act, the Committee was bound to determine the application on the material reality at the time the decision was being made.

·             There had been a monumental change in circumstances since the application had been submitted as 300 dwellings had been approved on a site nearby, yet the report did not mention this.

·             The new development doubled the size of Little Wymondley and created customer catchment in an area that desperately needed local services. Therefore, these commercial units were highly important.

·             Unit 1 was a Class E unit that could transition into a grocery shop or pharmacy, and the physical infrastructure and retail layout was intact for both units.

·             Granting permission would mean that a flexible community asset would be extinguished forever, which would violate the Neighbourhood Plan and contradict the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·             The Council could not justify approving an application for 300 dwellings, and then removing the units needed to service them and ensure the future sustainability of the village.

·             The application would comprise overdevelopment, be overbearing, and would erode structural integrity and quiet enjoyment of the adjoining properties.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Claire Winchester, Parish Councillor Harding advised that there were no other commercial units in the village.

 

The Chair informed Members that the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Dominic Griffiths had given their apologies and was unable to attend the Committee meeting to provide a verbal presentation. The Chair proceeded to read out a written statement on their behalf, and highlighted the following:

 

·             The existing neighbouring resident already had one property overlooking their garden and would have their property overlooked by a further two properties if this application was granted permission.

·             Their right to privacy would be lost and this would also damage their ability to resell the house.

·             There is no other funeral director within an 800-metre radius as referenced in paragraph 4.3.2 of the report, and their business would be a huge loss to the community.

·             Paragraph 4.1.6 referenced retail facilities, but there would be none in the village if these units were demolished.

·             Priory Lane had a history of flooding and adding homes to this would also impact on the ability to resell the homes.

 

In response to points raised during the verbal presentations, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the application would require a condition to submit a section drawing for the rear gardens as a nearby resident had raised concerns about subsidence.

 

In response to points made during the verbal presentations, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that:

 

·             The 300-dwelling development had not required a shop to be provided.

·             There may be more demand for commercial uses in the future, but the application was compliant with Policy ETC7 in the Local Plan as there were other commercial or industrial units within an 800-metre walk of the site.

 

The following Members asked additional questions:

 

·             Councillor Emma Fernandes

·             Councillor Caroline McDonnell

·             Councillor Val Bryant

 

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

 

·             It was approximately 9.8m from the back wall of the house to the fence.

·             Permitted development rights for dormer windows had been withdrawn from the proposed dwellings to prevent overlooking from the third storey.

·             A 2.5M fence would obscure any first-floor windows.

·             This site was to the north of the Plume of Feathers.

 

Councillor Caroline McDonnelll proposed to refuse permission due to the overlooking and loss of privacy, and the erection of a fence that could enclose the neighbouring resident, which was seconded by Councillor Claire Winchester.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·             Councillor Claire Winchster

·             Councillor Dave Winstanley

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Caroline McDonnell.

 

The following points were made during the debate:

 

·             A 2.5m fence would not be able to mitigate overlooking from the proposed dwellings, and their design was unsuitable considering the surroundings.

·             It would be a shame to lose commercial units in the village and seemed counterintuitive considering the 300-dwelling development that had been granted permission.

·             A high fence would be needed to retain privacy as the neighbouring property had dormer windows.

·             Loss of employment should be accounted for through the loss of units.

 

In response to additional points raised by Councillors Caroline McDonnell and Martin Prescott, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that:

 

·             A reason for refusal based on the loss of units could be attributed to Policy ETC2 in the Local Plan, which supported the retention of business units where there was potential demand for their need.

·             The Committee should delegate authority to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the reasons for refusal.

 

The proposer and seconder agreed to incorporate the additional reasons for refusal and to grant delegated authority to the Development and Conservation Manager and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 26/00021/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons, with delegated authority granted to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the reasons for refusal:

 

A)          The proposed dwellings would result in unacceptable adverse overlooking and loss of privacy to the immediate neighbour to the west failing to comply with the provisions of Policy D3 of the Local Plan and would result in a form of development failing to respond positively to the site’s local context, failing to comply with the provisions of Policy D1 of the Local Plan and Policy DP3.1 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

B)         The loss of the commercial / business premises is objected to on the basis that they are occupied by business uses and due to the grant of planning permission for 300 homes in the village, it is anticipated that there will be the demand for local business or shop uses in the village in the long term.  As a result, the retention of these commercial uses are protected by the provisions of Policy ETC2 of the Local Plan.

 

C)          Loss of local employment opportunities.

Supporting documents: