Issue - meetings

Proposed 3 bedroom detached dwelling and alterations to existing parking area.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 22/00674/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 22/00674/FP seeking a proposed 3 bedroom detached dwelling and alterations to existing parking area.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the item which had been called in by a Local Councillor. Site photos were displayed showing the plot and the garages which were owned by 40 and 41 Conifer Walk. There were 3 informal visitor spaces at the front of the plot, however the hardstand belonged to the site, not the garages.

The Chair invited Mr Craig Goode of 39 Conifer Walk, an objector, to address the Committee.

Mr Goode informed Members that residents struggled for parking and the roads were congested, this would only increase with the reduction of visitor parking and a new house. There had been two incidences of emergency vehicles not being able to access Conifer Close and refuse vehicles block the roads on collection days. He stated 42% of parking occupancy ignores the road type, which was two way, and therefore they cannot double park. It was in his view that the dwelling would change the overall characteristics, they would lose Conifer trees and it was against the Local Plan. Additionally, the building was in close proximity to others, it sat over key services and the construction would cause problems with the existing house foundations. Moreover, there was an application for a similar development in the area and that these applications should be heard together.

The Chair thanked Mr Goode for his contribution to the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the Highways Authority initially objected due to pedestrian access, however, this was removed as it was historically this way. The Council’s Arboricultural and Conservation Manager originally objected to the proposal but after looking at the orientation of the proposed development, deemed the woodland would not be impacted. A tree on adjoining land had a TPO and required work to be done but this was covered under a condition.

The Senior Planning Officer stated the main issues were the acceptability as this was a windfall site due to being undesignated in the Local Plan and it was not previously developed brown land. It had been deemed a suitable location, however the housing delivery test stated there was a 5-year land supply, so the development was not fundamental to meet land supply. Additionally, there was an issue with a lack of appropriate housing mix as Stevenage had a high proportion of 3-bed houses, so this application was not compliant with policy HO9, however it could be deemed partially compliant as it was detached rather than terraced.

The land was not public open space, but privately owned public accessible land. The parking spaces aren’t resident or visitor parking but private land. The land was small and had two dwellings either side but was overgrown and was subject to fly tipping. There was an alternative area of open space close by. The proposed dwelling would use similar materials as the residential area it was located in but was in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9