Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Conversion and extension of existing outbuildings to form two semi-detached 3-bed dwellings including creation of vehicular access off Radcliffe Road together with associated parking and amenity area (as amended by plan received 21.10.20).

RESOLVED: That application 20/01638/FP be DEFERRED for the following reason:

 

Pending further information on all matters relating to the issues discussed by the Planning Control Committee.

Audio recording – 28 minutes 16 seconds

 

Conversion and extension of existing outbuildings to form two semi-detached 3-bed dwellings including creation of vehicular access off Radcliffe Road together with associated parking and amenity area (as amended by plan received 21.10.20).

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/01638/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans and provided the Committee with the following updates:

 

·                The amended plan, Revision A to the proposed plans and elevations, showed more clarity in terms of the rooflights proposed on the rear elevation of the refurbished and extended building.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor David Levett;

·                Councillor Mike Rice;

·                Councillor Tony Hunter.

 

The Principal Planning Officer responded to questions as follows:

 

·                Current access to the site was via the applicant’s own land between numbers 59 and 60 Radcliffe Road;

·                There would be a planning condition securing electrical vehicle charging points;

·                The overall height of the building would be raised from 6.3 metres to 6.7 metres.

 

Ms Lisa Montague, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/01638/FP.

 

Ms Montague gave a verbal presentation including:

 

·                In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, sustainable development must meet present needs which included the ability for local residents to access parking within the Control Parking Zone (CPZ);

·                There were two petitions objecting to the second access route to the development - one of 44 residents to North Herts District Council and one of 54 residents to Hertfordshire County Council;

·                There was no need for a second access route, the existing one could be used and this would represent more efficient use of land;

·                She had no objection to developing the site in principle, but not at the expense of local residents and parking;

·                The proposed development would remove two on-street parking spaces from an already congested area where parking was a problem;

·                The following sections of the NPPF were cited in support of this position: 102E e), 92A, 92C, 122 and 123C Section 12.

 

Mr Duncan Leach, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/01638/FP.

 

Mr Leach gave a verbal presentation including:

 

·                The second access route off the highway was not needed, use of the existing access would allow the development to proceed with zero harm;

·                He considered that the necessary consultation with the relevant stakeholders for amending the CPZ had not occurred;

·                He showed the Committee a photograph showing the busy parking on the road which had increased due to people staying at home during the pandemic.

 

Councillor Ian Albert, Member Advocate, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/01638/FP.

 

Councillor Ian Albert gave a verbal presentation including:

 

·                This was the latest in a series of applications in the roads off Walsworth Road and Nightingale Road, Hitchin, which were likely to have a detrimental effect on parking and increase the number of vehicles in the area;

·                The development would necessitate the removal of at least one, possibly two parking spaces;

·                The development itself would be an improvement on what was there now and would provide additional dwellings in the area;

·                The new entrance way was very narrow and raised doubts over the operability of the turntable;

·                The bin storage seemed to be above 15 metres from the collection point;

·                Exceptional circumstances for removing the two parking spaces had not been demonstrated and there was a better access way in existence;

·                There was no comment from the parking section of North Herts District Council which would have been helpful.

 

Mr Ryan Albone thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 20/01638/FP.

 

Mr Ryan Albone gave a verbal presentation including:

 

·                The application was seeking full planning consent for the conversion of existing outbuildings to 2 new dwellings behind 61 and 61A Radcliffe Road;

·                The principle of development was accepted;

·                The proposed access would provide off-street parking to 3 dwellings (the 2 new plots and 61A)

·                It would result in the loss of just one space as the remaining space available for parking would be 15.6m long and therefore provided space for 3 cars;

·                The new dropped kerb wold occupy 5.4m which was the approximate length of one on-street parking space;

·                Concerns over the loss of parking space to existing residents was appreciated, but it was considered that this was outweighed by the benefits of the development;

·                Other nearby parking areas were available to residents;

·                The alternative should the application be refused may be to seek permission for the same 2 properties, but with no off-street parking provided. Parking permits would then have to be provided to new dwellings which would increase the demand on street;

·                If the applicant were to seek a new dropped kerb for a private driveway in the same place but to serve 61A only, this would likely not require planning permission and be solely under the jurisdiction of Herts County Council Highways team. A later re-use of this then existing access to serve the new dwellings would then be possible;

·                The existing access was very narrow and therefore only appropriate to serve the one existing dwelling.

 

The following Members asked questions of clarification:

 

·                Councillor Daniel Allen;

·                Councillor David Levett;

·                Councillor Mike Hughson;

·                Councillor Val Bryant.

 

Mr Ryan Albone responded to questions as follows:

 

·                The existing access way was approximately 2.3 metres at the tightest point; the proposed new access way was 3 metres wide which met Herts County Council Highways requirements;

·                This width would allow ambulances access but not larger fire appliances; fire access was separate;

·                Two of the three parking bays which would remain were ‘drive in’ bays so only required 4.8m space;

·                Highways would not accept more than 3 dwellings coming off either the new or existing access ways due to their width.

 

The Principal Planning Officer responded to points raised as follows:

 

·                He agreed that achieving sustainable development was not just about profit for the developer but that there must be beneficial outcomes for the wider community and that we should not be carrying out development that compromised the needs of future generations;

·                Also planning decisions should be taken in the public interest, but one of those interests was to ensure the local planning authorities delivered a supply of homes to meet its housing needs in sustainable locations such as this, where people could access a wide range of employment opportunities and other community services and in doing so reduce their need to travel, and in particular to use cars;

·                The loss of the parking space was acknowledged but this had to be balanced against the need to deliver new homes in sustainable locations;

·                Whilst there might be merit in an alternative scheme, the scheme before the Committee was that scheme detailed in the report and presentation;

·                Consultation had been carried out through the planning application;

·                The Controlled Parking Zone situation would be a matter for the Council’s Strategic Infrastructure and Projects Team who managed the CPZ in this area;

·                The bins were between 30 and 37 metres away from the highway. A condition could be included for a bin storage area placed towards the front of the site;

·                Amendments to the Council’s Parking Strategy were being considered in light of other recent developments in the area.

 

The following Members took part in debate:

 

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala;

·                Councillor David Levett.

 

Comments included:

 

·                It was suggested that the Committee might want to consider deferring its decision on the application until discussion had taken place concerning potential amendments to the Council’s Parking Strategy which might affect the development;

·                A change to the CPZ would require a full consultation and a full review of that CPZ;

·                The source of funding would need to be considered.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Sue Ngwala, seconded by Councillor David Levett, and:

 

RESOLVED: That application 20/01638/FP be DEFERRED for the following reason:

 

To seek more information on any changes to the local Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) that would take place to lose an existing on street car parking space if permission was granted. More information was needed on the practical implications and likely impact on local parking conditions.